MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

So you're skipping the debate phase entirely? Why?

Also, "YES" and "NO" are much more helpful voting options. And since your amendment would replace 203 it should be written out explicitly.

Because I don't see what there is to discuss. Vote, or invoke judgement.

Also, when you submit the proposal, there is nowhere to put the text of the rule.

Hold that thought, folks. I think an admin should convert this to a discussion thread first and we should hold off voting for the moment, before we get into a judgement mess about the reasonable time thing.

Up to anomie, though. We could just go with it if nobody objects.

I'm good with "take it or leave it" voting (a la Spork [shameless plug]), but I would prefer to see exactly what the "new" 203 text would be after the amendment. (which would really be rule 304 after renumbering).

I didn't realize judgment was still open, blech. Convert this to discussion as per ctmf's suggestion if possible.

I've been away for a few days, it's not easy to get caught up. Looking at the "Current state of the game" page, it looked like we were all ready for 304.

And I quote:

Next action: make proposal (anomie)

The vote that's currently open took place after turn 303 concluded. So the only thing the "Timing of vote 303..." judgment is holding up is turn 305. You're clear to go.

*******This vote still stands. Full text of 304:

The creation of a new rule, or an ammendment to a mutable rule shall require a 2/3 majority of of active player votes to pass.

So it specifically does not address repeals and transmutations?

"Active player" is an odd term to use here since it's not defined anywhere. How does it differ from a regular player?

If he wants to go to vote sans discussion, that's fine.

He's essentially saying he won't amend it, regardless of how the discussion goes.

That's unfortunate. I'm very much in favor of this rule's intention, but the lack of explicit wording would force me to vote no.

I'd agree volkspider. Discussing a rule prior to opening a vote would greatly increase it's chances of getting passed.

So it specifically does not address repeals and transmutations?

Correct.

"Active player" is an odd term to use here since it's not defined anywhere. How does it differ from a regular player?

Let a judge decide.

Discussing a rule prior to opening a vote would greatly increase it's chances of getting passed.

Based on previous votes, I had anticipated that the rule would not pass regardless. Anyone is free to vote against or invoke judgment if it's not to their liking.

Too vague for my liking, unfortunately.

(Plus, it's spelled 'amend,' but that's of lesser note.)

Well, it's not what I would have preferred. That said, I think I think it is a step in a good direction, and won't leave us any worse off than we are now.

My concerns:
It leaves undefined how many votes it takes for a repeal or transmutation (mutable - immutable; the other way is provided for in rule 109). I'd say, if it came down to it before someone else closed the loophole, a repeal is an amendment from current text to no text at all, and a transmutation is an amendment of the rule's meta-data. So each would require 2/3 also.

I'll vote yes.

I had anticipated that the rule would not pass regardless.

True... True.

Our best bet will likely be to rush through the first two rounds

As promised, I voted yes.

Based on previous votes, I had anticipated that the rule would not pass regardless.

You know, I think we actually got really close last time. There were some disagreements with the exact wording of that one, which I think were justified, but also a rewording put forward which I think dealt with those issues and would have made a good rule. I can't remember who put it forward, just that I quoted it near the end of the thread, and I'm still hoping someone else puts it up so I can vote yes on it.

I don't know if there are still spite votes going on and if that's what you're referring too (decided I don't really care about that stuff in the end), but ignoring that stuff I think we're on the right track with the proposals so far and just need some discussion and further tweaking to really make this work.

I'm not really comfortable with this as it stands because we've seen how little rule 105 means and how quickly people will call to move on. You ask for a two thirds majority but we don't even have a set in stone number of players. What if two people vote yes, one no then everyone else gets kicked out of the game and the vote is passed and the turn ended? Based on previous precedent I totally see it happening and don't trust a judge to fix it, particularly as you must be online as voting is happening right then to successfully invoke judgment during that turn anyway. Once the vote is closed the person who proposed it becomes the next judge so of course they're going to judge that everything went as planned.

A time limit I can live with, then the onus is on the players to participate within the time frame. Straight numbers I no longer trust and saying "just call for judgment" to decide everything totally doesn't fly.

... further tweaking to really make this work.

I'm not really comfortable with this as it stands ...

Um, the first "this" was aimed at the overall game, the second at proposal 304. Just to clarify.

I don't think people are in a huge rush to move on, but when a proposal has obviously failed, it's rather pointless to sit around and wait for every single person.

jeblis is absolutely right. We've done this a few times now, usually by invoking judgment, and the sky has never fallen. anomie should take their points and 305 should be put forth.

We have to do this 56 more times before majority rules kick in, if indeed people are going to make us do this 56 more times.

*********** VOTING IS CLOSED ******

My points awarded:
(rule 202)
304 - 291 = 14
14 * .74 = 9.61 ~~ 10;

(rule 206)
10 - 10 = 0

I am awarded 0 points, and may god have mercy on my soul.

NEXT

We have 24 players according to the current player list. Only 19 have voted on 304. Are we declaring the non-voters Not Players? Also, I'm not sure 28 hours is an adequate window.

anomie has no power to declare voting closed. Voting is certainly not closed.

anomie, if you want to have voting closed, you are welcome to invoke judgement on that matter. AAA has promised to be a very liberal judge, so you may just get what you want.

Haven't we adjudicated every single proposal thus far in exactly this way? What is the objection?

Yes, but the time delay keeps getting shorter and shorter. There is some point where not everyone gets a chance to even see the damn thing. Are we there yet?

Haven't we adjudicated every single proposal thus far in exactly this way? What is the objection?

Yes, but no judgement has been made about this proposal. The judge only interprets the rules, etc. for one move and has no power to change the rules. The rules are the same as they were last move when judgement was required to move on without every player having voted, and this move is no different.

We've only had 20 votes. There theoretically still should be 27 people out there able to play (29 originally, two have forfeited, the others can only be removed for a turn as judgement resets each time and there are no rules about rejoining) assuming they're interested and we give them the chance. The proposal is asking for a two thirds majority but we've hardly had more than two thirds of the potential pool even vote yet. I understand people wanting to get things moving but there has to be some balance. No one voted the 48 hours proposal down because it was too long.

An email list or rss notification would really help stop this situation coming up every time I think. It would notify people that there is a vote on and to come do something about it, and hopefully help the impatient players feel like things are moving forward. I notice we do have a feed for the overall mefino site (in the sidebar), maybe we need to encourage everyone to sign up? We're not generating that many discreet posts so having stuff in there besides just voting threads shouldn't make it unusable. Even a single mass mailing by an admin to the emails we signed up with (if this is possible, I have no idea) to encourage feed use and keeping up with votes might help. Or it might piss people off, I'm not really sure. (any mailing list used more than once should be opt in)

I can't believe anyone voted against that. You guys are the prissiest nomic players in the land. I really hope we can pick a voting system and get started soon.

My vote against was only for scoring purposes, 1. I have supported every proposal made thus far in the game.

#

LOL in office. I hereby amend my spite to "good-natured spite." Well played.

1, this was the worst proposal we've had yet. It had no actual text, there was no discussion, and the illegitimate text the proposer did provide would have removed the game's provisions for repealing and transmuting. This is the only proposal I've voted against.

If anomie had been keeping up with the game, and/or not been so arrogant as to believe his/her proposal needed no modification, I think this might have passed. Also, you voted down 303, a fairly well-written, adequately discussed proposal, out of spite. It's more than slightly hypocritical of you to chastise us for impeding the game's progress.

Why are people insisting we wait on a measure once it's clear that it won't pass? The only possible difference is that the poster will get more points. If the poster want to forfeit them, Why do you care?

jeblis: The only possible difference is that the poster will get more points.

This is incorrect. The late voters could vote "no" and decrease the fraction (favorable votes divided by total votes) specified in 202.

Anyway, I don't think the "holdup" is much of an issue at present given that backseatpilot hasn't even opened discussion on 305.

Anyway, I don't think the "holdup" is much of an issue at present given that backseatpilot hasn't even opened discussion on 305.

Good point. I think it is worth noting that there is nothing in the rules that prohibits discussion of a proposal prior to the end of the previous turn. It is pretty unlikely that we are going to get unanimous approval of a proposal unless we have some discussion beforehand and a chance to tweak the proposal to make it acceptable to everyone. If players were to open discussion on their potential proposal while voting is still open on the previous proposal, we might be able to work the proposal into something acceptable by everyone without wasting time. With any luck, once voting closes on the previous vote, the next player will have a proposal with a reasonable chance of success ready to go and we can proceed to the vote immediately.

If we just throw up proposals without any discussion (like this one), they are very unlikely to receive unanimous assent, which will force us to play two complete rounds before proposal acceptance defaults to majority vote. As others have previously pointed out, the game will very likely be dead before then. It is becoming quite clear that we need to work together in order to get anywhere in this game.

dgdjkglhhhdrewhgiurehjgioprehgjdfil;gjdsfkl;gjckl;jnvfkl;jnroeighjertoiphgreoipgjeroiprfjdoisjovgi;jxkl;gjxlck;gvjxclk;gvjxlk;gvjsdflk;gjdfslk;gjfdglk;rjhrtoi;hjroihjrhoiprjhorwpihjrwopihj

Submitted by volkspider on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 12:50.#

Lame callout.

If anomie had been keeping up with the game, and/or not been so arrogant as to believe his/her proposal needed no modification, I think this might have passed

I was away for a couple days. Sue me. It was not arrogance, I simply assumed that my proposal had no chance of passing due to the current requirement of unanimity. I'm mostly just trying to move the game along until we automatically convert to simple majority, or someone with more time can carefully craft a bill that will hold up to your misguided scrutiny.

In any case, I don't have time for this, and more importantly, it's not any fun the way it's being played. If others are enjoying this bureaucratic nightmare I don't want to stand in your way. I'm going to remove myself from the player list.

Sorry. It's certainly not my intent to drive anyone away.

anomie can we take this as a formal forfeit? Given you're next in line to be a judge it would be really helpful to know this for sure.

anomie removed his/her own name from the list of players.

sorry, and moved it into the "resigned" section. I don't think that's ambiguous.

Oo, I didn't see that last part. Pretty unambiguous yeah.

I've kind of given up on the players list since we've been throwing out players left and right. I do hope that those that get left behind realise that they can rejoin and will do so if they want to keep playing.