MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

My apologies for the delay, I'm on business travel this week. At any rate, I think this is direction that everyone has been trying to work towards, so a simple, baby-step change is what's needed right now.

Oh, and this would be rule 305 - change rule 105 from immutable to mutable.

Well, best of luck with it. Mind you, this doesn't require any more unanimity than has been required so far, so our odds are no worse ;)

And before someone says "What about the discussion period?" This one has been discussed (and technically voted on) since 301.

Anyway here's my +1.

There doesn't seem to be any elegant way to open discussion without opening voting as well. How have people done it in the past? If it needs to be done, then I'll say this is the discussion period with an expected "official" open to voting in 48 hours.

Yeah we should develop a convention of opening a discussion topic in the forum and then, when the poster is ready post the poll.

This one; however, has been thoroughly discussed. If someone votes no they're quite frankly being mean to everyone else. All this says is that in the future someone can propose a change to rule 105.

Yeah we should develop a convention of opening a discussion topic in the forum and then, when the poster is ready post the poll.

That's basically what we decided in the Proposal Procedure and Organization thread more than two weeks ago.

How have people done it in the past?

You could always look back at previous proposals. 303 was a decent example of how it should be done.

If it needs to be done, then I'll say this is the discussion period with an expected "official" open to voting in 48 hours.

In this case, I don't think it's really necessary. It's a transmutation, so there are no wording concerns to address. And unanimity is required, so no one needs to worry about building a case against it (anyone that opposes the proposal can defeat it single-handedly). I suppose technically you're breaking rule 111 ("reasonable time must be allowed"), but it's been done before and there are no official consequences.

I'd like to request a very minor change though, assuming backseatpilot doesn't mind: Could an admin prefix this page's title with "305"? It'd make things easier in the future.

Added 305 to title. Does not change proposal in any way.

You can't open a vote until we are able to move on. We have two judgements invoked for 304 which need majority vote agreeing to move on, and I don't think either of them have actually managed this. This is taken from 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.

You do not yet have that consent. So there isn't a delay and in fact you're jumping the gun - it is not turn 305 yet and you can't make a proposal until it is. Can we please at least TRY to follow the rules?

So yeah, this needs to be closed down and backseatpilot needs to wait until there has been a majority vote saying that their turn can begin.

Personally I recheck the rules a couple of times a week and always before I make any kind of decision (voting, invoking judgement, whatever). I highly recommend it.

Voting suspended - previous votes saved.
I'll be updating the current game status momentarily. To clear up confusion, we'll have a catch-all "vote to move on to turn 305," and then reopen voting. I don't think there is a need to clear the votes unless the proposal changes before voting opens again.

If there are no objections.

That sounds fine to me.

I know it seems nitpicky but the whole point of this game is to follow the rules and we're not actually very good at it (the crappy rules really don't help).

I think I was wrong up there btw, I'm not sure on re-reading that ssg was invoking judgement so I think we only need majority on my one - and we already have quite a few votes over there. I'd be happy with crediting the ones we have towards a catch-all if it's done separately.

Uh, where did the other votes to move on go? I lost track of what thread they were in.

It looks like there's majority consent to move on to 305 now, so we can open (NOT re-open) voting on this, if that's what backseatpilot chooses to do now that it's his turn.

shelleycat: I think ssg may have thought the invocation was obvious since he/she presumably used the "Post a new... Judgment Invocation" link.

Also, when it comes to Nomic, I think nitpickiness is generally a good thing.

Voting open.

Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers by starting this proposal too soon; there was a call in the previous thread to start 305, so I went with it.

I guess my confusion about opening the voting came from the links - "Post a New Voting Proposal" seems like the place to go when it's your turn to propose something, but it requires you to set up a vote immediately. Should I open a new forum topic first, as a place for proposal discussion?

Seems the sidebar links were causing some confusion all round. Hopefully the new labelling will make things better.

I should mention that my feathers were not ruffled and nothing I say here is ever meant personally. I can't keep people's usernames straight enough to remember who says what anyway, heh. I do think it's important to follow procedure and will continue to be nitpicky though, seems it's in my nature.

The other votes to move on were in my judgement thread btw, but it looks like that resolved itself anyway so it's all good.

In 12 hours, this vote will have been open for 48 hours, which seems like a sufficiently long time for anyone who is still playing to have voted. As far as I can see, at that point, someone will have to invoke judgement on the status of those who haven't voted to allow us to move on. I intend to ask our esteemed judge to declare them non-players, and, assuming the judge follows his previous judgement, we can proceed to vote to move on to 306. Can anyone think of a better way to proceed?

Sounds good to me, only as a special case, I suggest waiting until 0200 UTC. That gives west coast US players one last chance to vote after work on Friday. Yes, it's US-centric thinking, but consider that everyone else will have already had that opportunity.

Assuming lots of things, like working normal day shifts, etc.

Just a thought.

Is this actually going to pass? Momentous!

Sixteen votes is pretty low given we're supposed to have more than 20 players. I think that the confusion and stuff over this vote justifies waiting until after your work day on your Friday rather than rushing on. There still seems to be some discussion and disagreement on bonobo's proposed rule to keep you occupied until then. We could also start gathering votes to move on over in the current judgement thread but if judgement gets invoked again we might have to restart that so probably better to do things in order.

(heee, is after work on Friday in New Zealand already)

I have no problem waiting until 0200 UTC or later if desired.

Looks like we have a winner...

#

Looks that way. For formality's sake, I assert that:
1, notJim, and robocop is bleeding have had ample opportunity to vote, but have not. Therefore, they are not "playing", and should not be considered players for the purposes of Rule 105.

I furthermore certify that this assertion meets one of the requirements for being judged in that it affects the completion of the current turn. If anyone disagrees with me, it will meet the other requirement, and I will invoke judgement, with AAA as the judge.

However, if nobody disagrees with me within a reasonable amount of time, then we can move on without judgement.

It may even be quicker and less ambiguous if someone would just disagree right now, so we can judge it and get it over with, rather than have to decide how long to wait for objections.

"1, notJim, and robocop is bleeding have had ample opportunity to vote, but have not. Therefore, they are not "playing", and should not be considered players for the purposes of Rule 105."

Informally, ctmf, I assert that recent judgments have established a game custom and tradition regarding the definition of players. That "current accepted practice" is also on the Player List page.

If you would like me to tell you that officially, as the current judge, I will be more than happy to blather on extensively, but I think we should just modify the player list and move along.

#

Me too, really. The only thing that would piss me right the fuck off is if we went ahead, and then had to go back because someone objected after we were already halfway through the next thing. I'm trying to prevent that.

The danger, ctmf, is that if there is another turn-related judgment on my watch, I will be pressed to further my anti-democratic precedent and try to prevent a "consent to move to 306" vote.

It would get messy and ugly.

#

Ayup. It could indeed.

Didn't AAA already call for, then give judgement during this turn? So we have to vote on that before moving on to 306 anyway? He certainly worded it as an official invocation and an official judgement and I don't think it was during the turn before this one. Jay also invoked judgement although I think he took it back before judgement was given, not sure if that's allowed but it's ambiguous so can be let slide.

And once again, nothing the judge (or anyone else) can say stops the vote to move on thing that occurs after judgement is given, it's too clearly written in the rules. If you don't like democracy then all you can do is propose rule changes to get rid of it.

"it's too clearly written in the rules"

The whole point of judging is that there is ambiguity in the rules, and someone needs the authority to give a definitive interpretation. If the judge can be ignored when he makes "obvious mistakes", then there is no point in having judges.

#

I've come to the opinion that AAA is right on this.

212. If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question. Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player. This process is called invoking Judgment.

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.

Consent is not necessarily the same thing as a vote -- and indeed, if no one objects to his assertion that we can move on without a vote I think it would be fair to say that we have unanimous consent to move on.

Honestly, let's take this opportunity and move on. Who's got 306? As far as I'm concerned that person should post immediately.

I hadn't realized that no one has invoked judgment yet. I'll do it.

Since nobody has disagreed with me for over 12 hours, I'm going to go ahead and remove the names in question from the player list. I suggest 1) backseatpilot calculate your score and 2) we determine if there is majority consent to move on.

1) and 2) can happen in parallel. I still think the most straightforward way to do 2) is to post a vote on the matter, and don't understand the griping about that, but if someone has another suggestion, let's hear it.

I agree with that, though if someone wants to register a pro-forma disagreement in the invocation thread just so AAA can make it official that would also be good.

Anyone have a way of getting in touch with backseatpilot? Barring that, would anyone invoke judgment if we calculated their score for them and moved on? I'm really anxious to actually have something passed. Just one more step until we can actually start playing!

Let me see if I did this right - (305-291) * 18/21 = 12. I say 21 because there were three abstentions.

backseatpilot: Since someone has invoked judgement on the issue of this vote being over or not, you should wait until AAA judges. If he follows game tradition, he will declare the three others non-players, in which case you can score your full 14 points.

If I understand the most recent judgment correctly, those three were not players at the moment bsp calculated score. The act of declaring points is what caused them to be stricken from the player list.

So, yes, I also think 14 points for bsp.

#