MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

I vote yes.

YES

#

Yes

YES.

Yes

Yes

YES

Vote update (posted at irregular intervals):

For: (7)
AAA Aaron A. Aaronson
Chuck
ctmf
jeblis
motty
offby1
ssg (is now a "player" in accordance with established game custom)

Against: (0)

Remaining to vote: (20)
!jim
anomie
aspo
backseatpilot
Beatrice (bonobo)
cortex
flatluigi
gerryblog
jayCampbell (jay)
Mister_A
mosessis
Resrever
robocop is bleeding
shelleycat
Taksi Putra
tallus
turaho
volkspider
wendell
xorry

Correction. Remaining to vote: (21)
1 is also a player.

yes

Yes.

that's a yes...

yes. thanks, ctmf!

Yes.

I already voted yes on this here. So did mosessis. You even commented in the middle of it. But, if it helps, I'll vote yes again on this re-proposal. (Seems like we're going to get bogged down a lot with this sort of thing if people won't read...)

I know. Just trying to get it all in one place, instead of haphazardly all over the site.

Also that you still meant that, since some significant stuff changed since then, that you might object to.

Yup.

Yes

Vote update #2 (posted at irregular intervals):
Looks like a majority.

For: (15)
AAA Aaron A. Aaronson
Chuck
ctmf
jeblis
motty
offby1
ssg
Beatrice (bonobo)
cortex
mosessis
shelleycat
tallus
turaho
volkspider
wendell

Against: (0)

Remaining to vote: (13)
!jim
1
anomie
aspo
backseatpilot
flatluigi
gerryblog
jayCampbell (jay)
Mister_A
Resrever
robocop is bleeding
Taksi Putra
xorry

Yes

yes, let's move on

So it's 302 again, right? The majority has ruled?

I'm sorry, but what is the basis for calling this vote? I guess I should go along with it, and vote yes, since I support moving on, but if we're just going to change the rules as we go by voting to ignore them, why bother playing a game of rule-making?

Ahh okay, rule 212. Would have been nice to see that in the proposal.

How did we end up resolving the issue of what constitutes a player? I saw some agreement with what I posted last night, so is that just going to be de facto law?

!Jim:
Just for formality's sake, would you add up your score for us? It would make me feel better.

Here's the rationale for why this might need to happen.

yes

yea - once a proposal has been voted on, I think having to vote to move on to the next turn is silly.

I vote yes.

I vote yes, although I'm not in that list...

notJim, here's my take:

We can have votes to move on, edit the player list etc. Anyone is free to object by invoking judgment.

In fact probably anyone can make any move even if the rules forbid it. Obviously if someone has a problem with it they can invoke judgement. The game is not just about following a set algorithm, but also compromise, discussion, picking your battles. Only if a move is challenged do we have to refer to what the rules say.

Personally I'd like to move on to having proposals and voting on them.

vernondalhart - I believe the initial take on adding yourself is that no rule prevents it. It would be nice however that if you leave, please let everyone know.

Welcome!

I hate to be a wet blanket here. But I vote against and call for judgment.

Under what rules are you making this a votable item?

Under Rule 212 "When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players."

And now we have to do it again.

Can we not throw around calling for judgement so lightly?

Rule 212:

When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.

Judgement was invoked, but we're now voting to consent to 1 beginning his/her turn.

ctmf: And now we have to do it again.

Maybe not. For one, the "consent" (vote) doesn't necessarily apply only to a single invocation of judgment. I took that part of 212 to mean that the vote was to continue with the next turn with all judgment-related processes still ongoing. Secondly, what aspo did might not qualify as an actual invocation. 212 suggests that the judge's job is to decide "the question" (which aspo did not supply).

Anyway, FWIW, you can take my "yes" vote to mean that I consent to beginning the next turn for the purposes of all judgment invocations prior to the proposal of rule 302.

That, or, we could say that since we're "officially" on turn 302 (even though 1 has yet to begin), and just have the vote prior to continuing on to 303, in parallel with the vote on proposal 302. Easier to get everyone to vote on two things while they're here, than to hold two separate votes.

Plus, in 302 it doesn't take any interpretation to figure out who the Judge is.

Voting yes to move to turn 302.

Yes, if that word means something legal to this context. Otherwise I abstain.

But I vote against and call for judgement.

Judgement about what exactly? It's not just some general thing, we need to specifically disagree on something for the judge to, you know, make decision about. It only takes one person to disagree and we all have equal right to do so, so if aspo really wants to invoke a judgement them they have that right without us sighing and wringing hands. But it needs to be made clear exactly what they are asking for and at what stage of play.

This particular vote does not have to be unanimous and we already have majority, so no single player can stop us now moving on to 302. I would argue that we already did so as soon as we had majority, we're now just waiting for 1 to reappear with a proposal. So if judgement is invoked now it's as part of 302 giving clear rules about who is the judge (!Jim). But the judge needs a disagreement to make judgement about, so aspo please be more clear.

If judgement is made and all disagreements cleared up then do we need to do the majority vote thing too? I thought it was either or, although I don't have time right now to go back and reread the rules carefully so I may be mistaken.

(I meant to put this here)

The rules do not say that you have to invoke judgment on every move that violates a rule. They merely say that you can invoke judgment.

They also don't prohibit side votes on items that don't modify the ruleset.

So it would probably be better to invoke judgment only when you don't like a particular rule that has been approved. I personally can't see how refusing to move onto the next proposal benefits the game or a particular player (well at this stage anyway)

Under what rules are you making this a votable item?

It's not a "vote," strictly speaking. It requires the consent of a majority of players. One possible way of expressing that consent (posting in the thread) is very similar to voting. It's not that much of a stretch to colloquially call it a "vote," even if that's not technically correct.