MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

Rule 203 is amended to read:

"A rule-change is adopted if it receives at least a 2/3 favorable vote among votes cast on the proposal. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority."

I commented on this the first time it came up (here) and nothing has changed since then.

I don't know why that doesn't jump down to my actual comment, the anchor tags obviously aren't working the way I expected. This is the relevant bit:

"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."

Also: I did read the discussion about this vote, but typing was really painful the last few days so I couldn't comment. 1 already brought up pretty much the same concern in that thread and it wasn't addressed so I didn't see any value in adding anything myself.

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?

Which is worse than the current situation how? What if (under the current rules) two people vote yes, then everyone else gets kicked out of the game and the vote is passed and the turn ended?

shelleycat, I hope you'll consider changing your vote. We're going in this direction because certain other players have said they will vote against any time limit proposition -- so we need a 2/3 majority rule before we can get the time limit thing.

So the time anti-time limit people should oppose this too, right?

#

Anyone who never wants us to pass anything should oppose this.

shelleycat, although you generally make considered arguments against rules that would exclude swathes of players, a critical component of a _good_ system of laws is that it be possible to change them, and this would render that possible. It isn't perfect (and you've pointed out those flaws quite nicely) but the key here is that once this is passed it becomes a less onerous task to fill those gaps in. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; this is a good first step, even if it's not perfect.

I'm voting no because someone else already voted no and I'd like to minimize your points. Also this is kind of vague as it doesn't include a time limit on voting and language making clear who the 2/3 refers to.

It's only as vague as the rule it would amend. Adopting 307 would not make the rules more vague.

Shelleycat, please read ctmf's response to your complaint in the discussion thread. The scenario you describe can happen even without this amendment.

1: Rule 305 tells us that

Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

If we want to adopt a time-limit for voting, we are going to have to amend 305 (which is presumably the reason that everyone voted to make 105 mutable and turn it into 305). Rule 203, which Chuck is proposing to amend, tells us that

A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters.

.
To add a time limit and remove the requirement for unanimity, Chuck's proposal would have to amend 203 and 305, but rule 103 reads:

A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

In other words, Chuck can only propose an amendment to one rule, not two as you are asking him to do. Rule changes that try to somehow circumvent this are going to be a) not allowed by 103 and b) probably get us into a mess by creating a set of conflicting rules if adopted.

Wow, first proposed rule change to actually have all players vote on it, not requiring a judgment to declare closed! Yay, us!

I calculate my score as:
(307-291)*(12/16) = 12 [rule 202]
-10 [rule 206]

Net score: 2.

For the record, note that one NO vote was cast by vernondalhart after I calculated my score; in fact, he was not listed on the player list at the time I calcluated my score.