MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

The current 309 draft is an attempt to codify a formal current player list and a process for vetting new players.

310 does this again, so hopefully after two swings we'll have a player list to work with. Equally as important, it reduces the number of votes required to change a rule from unanimity to supermajority.

Can a rule contain a vision statement?
Rule 3xx: The following are the priorities for MeFiNo
1: establish a player list and means of joining the game
2: replace unanimous voting
3: establish voting time limits
4: judicial reform

Granted, a rule that doesn't require or prohibit anything could be considered null effect, but nothing prohibits that. Why would anyone make a null effect rule? In effect it would be a notification that if your proposal does not address something near the top of the list, it's going to be an uphill slog. If we can get everyone to agree on what a proposal should be about, it seems like that's part of the battle.

Or that may be stupid. Just thinking crazy.

I almost said thinking out of the box, but I already said vision statement. The corporate buzzword alarm went off.

We're undoubtedly going to continue working on 1 thru 3 till they're beaten, which might (or might not) make 4 less important.

I do not know who this "we" is that are going to continue working towards these goals, jay. The fantasy-based right-thinkers of the game have an entirely different agenda:

1) block any efforts to change the currently ambiguous process for joining the game
2) maintain the veto held by Aaron and his fellow travellers
3) block any attempt to clarify and codify time limits
4) judicial reform

Perhaps, as we are all agreed on the need for 4), we should start there?

#

I think ctmf has listed the real issues effecting the game in the order of importance. Sadly I also think Aaron has listed what will actually happen (with maybe some stuff in there about undermining any attempt to follow the rules, although possibly by a different set of players). I'm getting pretty frustrated with the second list to the point where I'm wondering why any of us are even bothering with this.

3: establish voting time limits

At the risk of using a trite catchphrase: fixed that for you. I think time limits on other elements of play (making proposals, rendering judgment) are important as well.

With unanimity required and a player determined to keep it that way, continuing to try to change it is futile. Time limits are deadlocked between AAA and shelleycat. I think pragmatism dictates that we shift focus to something achievable.

Judicial reform does seem a good place. Here's the problem I see, and it isn't with loose cannon judges exceeding their authority. It could include that, but it's a wider problem. I'm just noticing this (maybe I'm slow).

I just made a couple of judgments. Those judgments are, in effect, rules for this turn. Nobody got to vote on those, and overruling is damn near impossible.

Now say, next turn, before anyone acts, flatluigi self-invokes the question of whether those judgments still apply. He rules that A and B still apply and a new D replaces C. Nobody gets to vote on that either.

Turn after that, same thing.

We have, in effect, a second rule set that nobody ever voted on. The rules can be changed periodically by a Judge without reference to anyone else's opinion. For example, it's possible AAA never gets a say in how a player should join the game until his turn comes up again. This is not a democracy, it's a serial dictatorship. Given that "game-custom" and "spirit of the game" are pretty broad even assuming good faith, it's only a matter of time before the shadow rule set is used for evil. Won't somebody think of the children?

I think we need: (1) a lower margin to overrule judgments, and maybe (2) a panel of more than one judge.

Judgment by majority vote. Make it a REAL democracy.

Wow. That would be slower than... something that's really slow. Maybe overruling by majority vote, with a point penalty for an overruled judge.

I wanted to make this point by example, but we do need to implement something for overruling. Do you realize if a judge has a single sockpuppet, they can rule that they've won the game and use that sockpuppet to keep people from overruling?

It might also help to have a rule making it impossible for a player to judge his or her own invocation. I'm not sure if it could be implemented, but a random selection of the judge (or judges) would be nice too. I'd prefer to see a 2/3 vote to overrule rather than a simple majority.

It might also help to have a rule making it impossible for a player to judge his or her own invocation.

I always thought that was the intent of the initial ruleset but disagreement has been voiced.

Peanut gallery update: I think 309 is doomed. 310 in its current form is doomed. AAA threatens to veto anything that excludes Abron.

Maybe the sockpuppet issue can't be resolved within our current ruleset, and we let the existing sock puppets in - the ones registered before I post this comment. They could be voted out of the player list later when majority voting is in place, and if that majority musters the will.

I think a winnable battle might be time constraints to keep the game moving no matter what step wedges up.

I agree with you re: 309 and 310, but I still think we'll be able to bootstrap simple majority rules during your turn as a result of my deep and abiding respect for the sacred office of the judiciary. If I were writing 311 I'd say that its text should be simple and sweeping, something like

Unless demanded by a immutable rule, no game decision shall require more than a simple majority of players in agreement to take effect, including the adoption of rule changes and judicial overrides. This rule shall take precedence over all mutable rules."

(What I like about this language is that it takes care of both judicial overrides and rule passage with one stone. Skimming the rules, I think it's legal.)

In fact, I may just use that text for 310, but if I do and you like it feel free to use it again for 311, when it should have a substantially greater chance of passage...

we let the existing sock puppets in

I never thought I'd hear those words from you, jay. I think there is a problem, though, in that only one of the new accounts is unquestionably a sockpuppet. I say we let the new players in who have been actively participating and acting like players, rather than the two obvious "spoof" accounts, i.e., not the AAA Aaron doppleganger or the sock who will not vote. Neither of them have posted a single comment, neither of them are actually attempting to play. Abron/Meatbomb on the other hand seems pretty legit.

If we could move past this, you'd find me much more cooperative and agreeable to sensible rule changes moving forward.

#

There's just no solving the sock problem while we require unanimity. I'm not going to vote to recognize the legitimacy of Abron under any circumstances, and AAA seems equally determined to veto any law that denies Abron the franchise. Once unanimity is gone, we can put the question to the group and see how the chips fall.

It might also help to have a rule making it impossible for a player to judge his or her own invocation.
I always thought that was the intent of the initial ruleset but disagreement has been voiced.

I must have missed that. How so?

Here is me bitching about AAA judging himself.

I don't see your argument there. The "previous player" refers to the order of moves, not invocations.

I don't know what I'm arguing about here. Let's go vote on 309.

Peanut gallery update: 309 is reaching subterranean levels of defeat. gerryblog's new 310 tries to move us to simple majority.

310 is going to vote, draft language: Unless otherwise demanded by a immutable rule, no game decision shall require more than a simple majority of players in agreement to take effect, including the adoption of rule changes and judicial overrides. This rule shall take precedence over all mutable rules.

If this passes, the field is wide open. I'd be happy to sponsor a proposal about time limits or playerhood and save the mini-games till next cycle.

If 310 doesn't pass, 311 will depend on why not.

Making it so a judge can't rule on their own invocation, without anything else, will still be a really good change. Then you need at least two people working together for something to happen. Judges can't rule on something unless someone has a disagreement, so this will stop them making up rules out of the air. I'd happily support a rule for this.

Making it a bit easier to overturn judgements is good too although we need to think about what to do if this happens. A judgement is supposed to be is someone disagrees with something or something is unclear. Removing the judgement reinstates the disagreement or uncertainty. The original issue is still there to be resolved. So does the judge rule again differently? Or does the issue get ignored? What if it's something that's holding up the game? This has always been a potantial issue but it's soo hard to over rule judgements that it hasn't come up yet. I don't know what the answer is, just wanted you all to start thinking about it. And I will support changing the overule thing to a two thirds majority.

My other issue is that invoking judgement during a specific turn can be quite hard. If the person posting the vote opens then closes it really fast you have to invoke during that time period to get the previous player as a judge (and thus have to be online watching right when it happens). Once the turn has been declared over the person who just had a turn becomes the judge, so anyone with issues about how fast it all happened is screwed (because the person who did the bad thing is now in charge of judging on it). A set time period for voting would obviously fix this (and you all know I like that idea).

Lastly, if you move to judgement by majority vote then how is that different from passing rules really? They don't last as long but judgements have a big effect on game play - probably bigger than the rules at this point - so we end up voting to change lots of things about the game during each turn instead of just one. I don't really see how this helps anything.

so this will stop them making up rules out of the air.

That should say stop them making up judgements out of thin air. Sorry.

A judgement is supposed to be is someone disagrees with something or something is unclear. Removing the judgement reinstates the disagreement or uncertainty. The original issue is still there to be resolved. So does the judge rule again differently? Or does the issue get ignored? What if it's something that's holding up the game? The rules provide for this. The next-previous player becomes the new judge.

It's clear that nothing is perfect, but it's just as clear that a situation in which a single player can derail the game as long as they have a sock account is untenable. The ability for the group to overturn rulings is just as necessary as majority-rules voting; the omnipotence of the judges is not a stable state for this game in the long-term.

I totally agree with this. We just need to think about how we will deal with the situation if it arises. Which as I type this actually seems familiar ...

OK so this is actually addressed in the rule. Part of 212:

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled only by a unanimous vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

I should have remembered that first. I'm so used to the rules being unclear on things I care about that I forgot to check. So it's not an issue.

Hey, jay, whatever you decide to post, make sure it tackles judge overrides as well as majority-rules voting. We're in danger of rogue judges taking over now that people are starting to get a taste for it.

(Honestly, I'd most like to see 310 reposted with word and numerical changes as you see fit, but it's your call.)

jay, I think we should try for a repeat of 310. If you'd put the same proposal to vote, I will invoke judgement on the question of the player status of 1. Given that the game is Mefi Nomic, I contend that only those who are members of Metafilter can be considered players here. We have no way to know if anyone else is a person or a sockpuppet. That eliminates 1, Chuck, AAA (possibly), Subwolf, and Lambchop. They can rejoin during the next turn after we have eliminated the unanimity requirement.

ssg, that's all true, plus I still have that other ruling up my sleeve all cooked up and ready to go.

Well, looks like the judge is on board.

Well, actually, let's wait and see. I'm reluctant to start throwing people off the rolls. I think my planned judgment will take care of everything; if it doesn't we can revisit this.

I'm not really a big fan of legislating from the bench, gerryblog, which is why I suggested doing it this way. I don't know what you have planned, but my feeling is that these sorts of judgements in general legitimize the kind of silliness that flatluigi has been engaging in. I'm not eager to be throwing players out the game either, but this is the least judgement intensive way I can think of to work around 1's weird behaviour.

The thing is, I think 1 is a real player, just weird. It's much more offensive to me to throw real players out for not voting "right" than it is to do the other thing I have planned.

Any reason you have to keep your plans a secret? I have to say, it doesn't instill a lot of confidence that your planned judgement will be in accordance with the rules if it has to be kept a secret.

I don't know if 1 is a real player or not and I don't think you do either. I think the only fair thing to do when one vote can scupper every proposal is to remove every player that we have reasonable grounds to believe may not be a real player. I'd say being a member of Metafilter is a reasonable test to apply in this case. Once we no longer require unanimity, then we don't have to be so restrictive. Every vote is very important right now and we should be as sure as possible that every vote is being made by a legitimate player.

I was actually going to do it as soon as it was indisputably jay's turn, but with all the craziness tonight I think I want to wait until tomorrow to pull the trigger. It's really not that extralegal -- I just don't want to provoke a fight over it until the judgment and its logic has been laid out solidly.

As soon as jay posts 311 for voting, I'll lay it out, if not before.

As for 1 and the sockpuppet menace, I'm going to think about it harder. I think it's a potentially very contentious subject and I want to proceed carefully.

We're in danger of rogue judges taking over now that people are starting to get a taste for it.

After watching your soul get devoured by the dark side, I can tell I'm going to warp into a bastard Judge Jeckyl myself. You guys better drag out the 311 vote.

The dark side? I should be given a medal. There were only a few ways out of what flatluigi was doing, and they were all worse than this...

I'd vote for your medal. The only path I could take was much shadier.