MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

317. The maintainer of the Mefino website shall be directed to make a good faith effort to do his or her best to ensure that all text posted by 1's guild (the non-secret members) shall be displayed as bolded, in the color known as harvest gold, and rendered in the font commonly known as "Comic Sans."

For the purposes of this rule, guildies of 1 shall be defined as all users declared by 1 to be his or her guildies who, after being so named, do not object. No preemptive rejections shall be entertained, as they would be very rude, not to mention presumptuous.

For the purposes of this rule, all members of 1's guild will be free to leave at any time, effective immediately after a public declaration to that effect.

Any other activities/procedures of 1's guild (field trips, guild songs, rhyming comment days, etc.) shall be considered internal guild matters and not affected by this rule.

This rule shall not be construed as doing anything more than:

a). defining a group of players (1's guild)
b). directing the maintainer of the Mefino website to make a good faith effort to do his or her best to apply a certain type of formatting to that group's posts (bold, harvest gold, Comic Sans)

OK, so i made some slight revisions to the version I posted for discussion. Most notably:

1. No more blinking.

2. I took out the part about the creation of the new judge as I could see that being used for mischief, and added language to the rule explicitly limiting its scope to defining the guild and requesting that Jay make a good faith effort to stylize its text.

I believe that this both addresses all stated reservations about the rule and also is specific enough that if Jay says that the text thing is unworkable it does not create any problems/consititional crisis/time paradox.

I rule that this proposal has not changed, and that therefore ctmf votes yes for it.

#

AAA, I think it is pretty clear that this rule has materially changed. Will you remove the vote you have added or will we be forced to go to judgement?

I took my antihistamine this morning so find myself able to vote yes. Particularly since all the confusing judge stuff is gone.

I vote yes to this proposal since it is awesome, unless it "materially changes", then I vote no.
...

I vote yes on every attempt to overrule, unless it is a judgment on what I mean by "materially changes", in which case I vote no. —ctmf

Two comments:
1) Given ctmf's statement that 1's proposal is "awesome," I think we can reasonably extrapolate that the minor changes above do not constitute material changes.

2) Given that ctmf always votes to overule a judgment about whether or not he agrees that the proposal has not materially changed, we can conclude that ctmf wants us to take a loose view of material changes. This surely qualifies.

3) The vote on whether ctmf votes yes collapses into the vote on whether this should pass. Would anyone vote "YES" on this but vote that ctmf voted "NO"? Why would they do such a silly thing?

1) Given ctmf's statement that 1's proposal is "awesome," I think we can reasonably extrapolate that the minor changes above do not constitute material changes.

I don't think ctmf's opinion on the proposal should have any bearing on what is or isn't a material change.

2) Given that ctmf always votes to overule a judgment about whether or not he agrees that the proposal has not materially changed, we can conclude that ctmf wants us to take a loose view of material changes. This surely qualifies.

He has indicated that he would like to vote against overruling such judgements, not that he will vote to overrule.

3) The vote on whether ctmf votes yes collapses into the vote on whether this should pass. Would anyone vote "YES" on this but vote that ctmf voted "NO"? Why would they do such a silly thing?

If the judgement goes against your interpretation of ctmf's wishes, then in the only case that matters (when ctmf is the deciding vote on this proposal), ctmf will vote against overruling.

In any case, I think this is silly. If ctmf isn't playing, then he isn't a player. Why should we have to argue about the interpretation of his instructions? He can rejoin the game when he wants to play again later.

I don't think ctmf's opinion on the proposal should have any bearing on what is or isn't a material change.

Sure it does. ctmf was clearly a major proponent of the proposal. Are there reasons to think that the minor changes mitigated the stated awesomeness? I don't see any, and I haven't heard any arguments to that effect.

He has indicated that he would like to vote against overruling such judgements, not that he will vote to overrule....If ctmf isn't playing, then he isn't a player. Why should we have to argue about the interpretation of his instructions? He can rejoin the game when he wants to play again later.

There's a long tradition of proxy votes of this sort. We should respect that tradition. I'd definitely vote to overrule any attempt to strip ctmf of player status in this situation.

There's a long tradition of proxy votes of this sort. We should respect that tradition.

We've never run into a situation before where we are required to interpret the player's wishes like this. If this was just a proxy vote, we wouldn't be here debating what constitutes a "material change".

Perhaps we could start with establishing what you think "materially" means in this context. Which changes do you think would constitute material changes in ctmf's opinion, and why?

The removal of the whole section about judging certainly is a material change.

It seems hard to imagine that the (pretty worthless) section on judging is what caused ctmf to be all "this proposal is awesome." Do you imagine that if he saw it today he'd say "this proposal is still awesome, but now it is not awesome enough for me to vote 'yes' on?"

This is basically the same proposal that he fell in love with. It's just lost a little weight. If we look to society's teachings on issues such as this, he should now find it more attractive.

Again, I'm not arguing about whether or not ctmf would find the proposal awesome. That isn't the point. As far as I know, we don't allow votes to be counted based on how a player would have voted (and especially not on how they would have voted according to AAA or any other player in particular). The question at hand is whether or not the proposal has materially changed. It clearly has and because ctmf has left no instruction for this case, there should not be any vote counted for him. What AAA, 1, myself or any other player imagines he might think is entirely beside the point.

Well then, I guess I have to invoke judgment as to whether or not this proposal is materially the same as the one ctmf said he'd vote for.

I argue that it is as, if you read the original text, the role of the judge was already so circumscribed as to be practically meaningless. (And indeed, when I wrote the first draft I intended the judge part to be a silly add-on and not a significant part of the proposal.)

You're up, Tallus. Render from on high.

The question at hand is whether or not the proposal has materially changed

And it has not. The topic and broad implementation of the proposal is exactly as it was. There was no bait and switch going on. A meterial change would be a shift from "rule about guild and fonts" to "rule about time limits" or "rule about ssg wearing a funny hat". Why did he include the word "materially"? The way ssg is trying to have it, ctmf votes no if a comma is removed or inserted.

#

backseatpilot, flatluigi, ssg, jay: it isn't too late to change your vote. Why, if you are against this, did you remain silent in the debate phase?

#

AAA: You know very well that removing the section about judging is a far different change than removing a comma. I never said anything to indicate that removing a comma would be a material change and for you to attribute that belief to me is just silly.

ssg, what will make you vote "yes" to this most excellent of proposals? Why are you blocking the passage of this crucial legislation that we all agree is awesome?

#

ssg, what can WE do for YOU to convince you switch your vote and drop your craaaaazy objection?

I wouldn't drop my objection about ctmf's vote even if I were to change my vote. As it happens, gold text tends to irritate my baby toes, so I am, sadly, forced to vote no. Surely we can all understand the pain of an itchy toe.

It's a shame you weren't more forthcoming earlier, I am certain 1 could have accommodated your color needs ssg.

#

Well 1, I would like to send my sympathies regarding your mom. It is a shame that there are haters among us that don't feel charitable enough to provide her this small token memorial.

#

Thanks. This month has been really rough on my and my kid brother, especially given that our dad ALSO died, a few months prior. I might take my bro with me out west, use the inheritance to get a house for just the two of us, and try and found some kind of literary magazine. Maybe play some frisbee in the park. . . . .

CHANGE YOUR VOTES, YOU FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a bit embarrassed about my condition, AAA. I don't like to mention it, but since you asked, I felt compelled to.

Throw that frisbee high, 1!

Less emoting, more revoting.

I think the judge section before was poorly written, confusing and probably unenforceable (assuming anyone could figure out when it was supposed to be enforced). It read like a last minute tack on. So taking it out doesn't really change anything and I think cmtf would still like to vote yes.

Someone could always try contacting him about it. He said to do this when it's his turn which indicates there may be some level of reachability there.

AAA, can you let us know what you are thinking for your turn? This vote closes pretty soon.

Officially, this has failed. Points should be

(317-291) * (5/10) = 13 - 10 = 3

unless I've messed up the math someplace.

I get 5.6 (so 6?) but i'm doing 6/10 as you forgot ctmf's pre-vote.

The prevote's already counted in the 5/10...