MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

AAA, Please paste exactly what we're voting on here as a comment. If you already put it in the body of the post, sorry about that, the drupal poll module is goofy and won't show it.

We are voting on 303, exactly as it is printed at the top of this thread:
http://blogshares.com/mefino/node/32

For your viewing pleasure, I cut and paste it here:

A player shall be defined as anyone who has voted on the currently open resolution within 48 hours of the vote being opened.

Someone who loses player status due to failure to vote can regain player status by voting within the time limit on any future proposal.

#

I guess the implication is that voting can effectively end after 48 hours of a vote call?

I think the problem with this is that, if I'm reading the rules correctly, you would no longer be a player if you fail to vote on one proposal, and therefore lose voting eligibility for subsequent votes. Or maybe this is one of those "anything not explicitly prohibited is allowed" cases, since I think the rule says that every player is an eligible voter.

You are not reading the second sentence, backseatpilot. This rule makes "player" a fairly ephemeral and unimportant status to have, and allows us the flexibility to move with those that are still with us and quickly / easily dump those that fall away. Missing a vote doesn't have many repercussions, because as per the second sentence you can always rejoin hassle free.

This is why this rule proposal is excellent, elegant, powerful, and deserves your vote!

#

Yeah we need to get this done quick. It works with the current ruleset and allows us to move a along a at a reasonable pace of 1 rule proposal every two days.

Otherwise this nomic is in danger of dying. Spork is on like rule 11 or 12 and it's more fun when you can move through the turns every day or two.

I agree with jeblis, get on board with my proposal dudes - it will SAVE MEFINO!!!!!111

#

Ah, I see now. 105 says "Every player is an eligible voter" and must vote, so this proposal would define what a "player" is. I like it, it's elegant.

Yeah, It is an elegant way of jiving with the current rules and effectively allowing us to move on. My wording, although clearer and more direct conflicts with the rules. (which, if no one challenged it, would have been ok too)

I think that this wording leaves us open to a potential stall if someone doesn't bother to show up for their turn. If a player is defined as someone who has voted on the currently open resolution, then absent a currently open resolution, this definition of a player doesn't apply. Once voting is closed on a particular resolution then we have to revert to some other definition of a player (which would mean, I'd assume, the player list). If the next player on the list doesn't show up to take their turn, we are will be forced to invoke judgement on 201 to continue (and hope that the judge has a very liberal interpretation of the rule).

Finally, and this is dangerously far into nit-picking territory but seems worrisome to me, this proposal may not actually allow us to vote. While there is a currently open resolution a player is defined as one who has voted. Prior to voting on a currently open resolution can anyone be said to be a player? I'd say no. And if they are not players, then they aren't eligible voters (by 105, unless we want to say that players are a subset of eligible voters, in which case we need some other definition of eligible voter). I think this proposal might have unintended consequences, though I'd very much like to hear anyone's argument as to why this won't be the case so that we can get on with this.

ssg, I don't think this piece of legislation is perfect, but it somewhat coincides with the rules, and will allow us greater flexibility in moving on. Also no rule has to be followed unless a player invokes judgment.

Once we get moving we can make 105 mutable and modify it to have better wording.

I'm retracting my Yes vote. Once the "currently open resolution" has been passed and closed, it could be argued per ssg that there are no active players eligible to make the next proposal. Anyone could call for judgment and '1' would likely rule that anomie, the next player, has won per:

213. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

Can I rereresuggest debate around jeblis' text:

Any player who does not vote within 48 hours of the vote beginning is considered to have abstained.

Any player who does not make a proposal within 48 hours of their turn beginning is considered to have passed on their turn

anomie or aspo, your proposals are upcoming, would you sponsor something like this?

jay, that won't work; it contradicts 105, which will by #211 cannot be superseded in this way.

Ok so what we really need is for the next vote to make 105 mutable, then we can adopt something similar to my wording.

How about if we alter "currently open resolution within 48 hours of the vote being opened" to "current resolution within 48 hours of the opening of its vote." That, if I'm not mistaken, would thereby not require a resolution to be open for there to be players.

jeblis: I think we should not establish rules that force us to rely on judgement (or on everyone avoiding invoking judgement) to continue playing.

jay: Actually, I think the situation could be worse than that. Once there are no players, no one can be "the first player unable to complete a turn". I'd suggest that the game just ends.

"A player shall be defined as anyone who has voted on the currently open resolution within 48 hours of the vote being opened."

The "currently open resolution" could be interpreted as this current thread, proposal 303, making all users who vote (unanimously "yes", obviously) permanent members of the game.

flatluigi: I don't think that there is a current resolution once the vote is finished. It either becomes a rule or doesn't.

I think the best course of action is to make 105 mutable, as jeblis suggests, but failing that I could see wording along the lines of:

If a player fails to vote on a proposal within 48 hours of vote being opened, s/he ceases to be a player.

Since we allow anyone to sign up, anyone who loses their status by the above rule can sign themselves up again whenever they desire.

"Anyone could call for judgment and '1' would likely rule that anomie, the next player, has won per..."

I will be the next judge - why would I throw the game to whoever follows me? As the original drafter there is no way I would rule on my own new law in such a convoluted way - I don't think anyone would, because then you are throwing the game to some other guy.

"(and hope that the judge has a very liberal interpretation of the rule)"

Allow me to assure you I will be a very liberal judge. After my turn ends would be an excellent chance for anyone who would like to see significant game tradition developed by an activist judge legislating from the bench. :)

#

You don't judge your own rule. It's not the next player's turn till the votes are closed, any outstanding judgments are settled and the rules are updated.

we read 212 differently I think, jay

#

AAA: Activist judgin'? Sure raises my hackles. I'd better develop a notwithstanding clause for my turn.

If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question ... 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.

1 is the 'preceding player', AAA is the 'one moving', and anomie is 'the next player'.

Even once a new proposal is "current", you can't know that I'm not a player until the 48 hours is up. Before that, I still might vote within the 48 hours, and thus nobody can say I'm not a player yet.

So I think the rule works. I'm voting yes, even though I preferred the transmute and change Rule 105 plan. We can still do that later, I guess.

I'm more concerned about the fact that this rule does not take effect until the end of this turn.

Under the rules, at that point there are no more legitimate players.player. Nobody has voted on the currently open resolution, because no resolution can be opened, because nobody has voted on the current resolution... etc...

See rule #107

offby1 is right, I think. If the vote is adopted, there's no way to continue. I changed my vote to no.

It's a good idea, but the wording is too muddled to do what it sets out to do clearly.

"1 is the 'preceding player', AAA is the 'one moving', and anomie is 'the next player'."

Depends when exactly the Invocation occurs. Once my turn is done and I take points, it is next guy's turn and I am the preceding player.

#

If a player fails to vote on a proposal within 48 hours of vote being opened, s/he ceases to be a player.

Is there any reason why this doesn't fix the problem you've all come up with?

They're reading the first sentence as exclusive, i.e. The only players are those who have voted on the current proposal. In that reading, there would be no players immediately after the vote closes.

I read the rule as inclusive, i.e. everyone is a player unless you don't vote on the current proposal.

I admit it's ambiguous, but I don't think it's a fatal flaw. It could be corrected later; I trust judges to uphold the intent AAA proposed it in, which is my reading (and yours). Others don't have such confidence, I guess.

The text you quoted would work. We can't change the proposal now, though. It's being voted on already.

I agree, ctmf: I'd vote yes on that version.

We have 20 votes here: has everyone voted then?

#

I am now taking my score, MY TURN IS NOW OFFICIALLY OVER.

It is now next guy's turn.

I am now the judge for any new Invocations.

303-291 = 12 * .75 = 8 points.

#

(minus the ten for a failed proposal, right?)