Home » Forums » Proposal Discussion

Discussion of 301. Adapting to the Medium

This thread is for discussion of 301.

‹ Judge nominations
 

I propose a transmutation of Rule 105 to a mutable rule.
Submitted by notJim on Tue, 03/25/2008 - 13:06.

#
  • By jay at 03/25/2008 - 16:00
 
 

That's not the proposal being voted on. It's this:

Very well. I propose a transmutation of Rule 105 to a mutable rule.
Submitted by notJim on Tue, 03/25/2008 - 13:06.

(No worries, I made the same mistake myself.)

#
  • By volkspider at 03/25/2008 - 16:18
 
 

Oop - fixed. I didn't expect to get lost yet.

#
  • By jay at 03/25/2008 - 16:30
 
 

Now I want to change my vote from No to Yes. Is that legal?

#
  • By jay at 03/25/2008 - 16:30
 
 

jay: see this comment

#
  • By notJim at 03/25/2008 - 16:34
 
 

jay: Now I want to change my vote ... Is that legal?

I think so. See here and here.

#
  • By volkspider at 03/25/2008 - 16:35
 
 

I changed my vote, and volkspider did too, so it's back to unanimous in favor as of now.

#
  • By jay at 03/25/2008 - 16:39
 
 

301 is dead, long live 301.

Question: when and by whom was "player" defined? I don't see any definition in the rules other than the list at the top, which is not part of the official rules. Rules concerning the player list need not conflict with 105. This may be a way to avoid deadlock without transmutation of 105.

#
  • By anomie at 03/26/2008 - 07:14
 
 

Sorry, I think I should have posted this here:

Actually, I believe that the concept of who is and who is not a player was established in the earlier wiki: http://mssv.net/wiki/index.php/Talk:MeFi_Nomic

Anyway, yes it is a pain in the ass getting this to work with 29 players, BUT that's the challenge. Our first great hurdle is going to be getting everyone to agree to amend the rules to allow for a more flexible and workable definition of the concept of "player" or "participation". such that if 2/3 of the eligible voters (for instance) cast a vote, that vote is official. This could be done in 2 steps --->1. transmute 105
2. Amend 105 such that (for instance) only 2/3 of eligible voters need vote in order for the vote to be "legally" binding.

What I'm getting at is that the difficulties we're encountering here are not a bug - they are the very essence of the game, and arguing in favor of the prooposed rule change is also the essence of the game, as is arguing against it. If my pro-301 argument proves to be more cromulent than your anti-301ist pablum, than 301 will carry the day. If not, we will have a protracted battle over the opening turn, which is part of the game! And which I have no problem with.

Those couple paragraphs were a response to Cortex's suggestion that we adjust the rules by fiat to create a more flexible system.

#
  • By Mister_A at 03/26/2008 - 08:40
 
 

I am not opposed, however, to invoking judgment in the near term as to the status/eligibiliity of players who have so far not commented nor voted on anything in this space. I think we can quickly agree to adjust the list of eligibles to reflect reality, such as it is. However, this does not obviate the need for stepwise modifications to the rules to permit a large subset of the eligible voters, however we define them, to constitute a legally binding quorum or what have you. So my proposal:

1. Define the list of eligibles to reflect those who have participated thus far.
2. Begin modifying the rules - we can do that in the existing framework as long as we do not have to wait for "players" who have not participated - we will just exclude them from the game until such time as rules are created allowing for inclusion of new players :)

#
  • By Mister_A at 03/26/2008 - 08:48