MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

just for the record, here's the text at that link:

The current players are those holding the following accounts:
1 (user id 36)
Aaron A Aaronson (user id 7)
backseatpilot (user id 25)
Chuck (user id 23)
ctmf (user id 30)
flatluigi (user id 6)
gerryblog (user id 19)
jay (user id 3)
jeblis (user id 9)
mosessis (user id 12)
shelleycat (user id 11)
ssg (user id 37)
tallus (user id 20)
vernondalhart (user id 38)
volkspider (user id 21)

A new player may request to join the game by posting to the forum. The current players then have 48 hours to object. Objection may only be made on the belief that the new player is a sockpuppet. No other basis for objection is allowed. Rebuttal by the prospective player is allowed. Objections may be retracted within the 48 hour time.

If, after 48 hours, the number of objections exceeds 1/2 of the total number of current players, the prospective player may not join the game. Otherwise, the prospective player becomes a player of the game effective at the beginning the following turn.

Any previous player of the game (holding an account with a user id less than 38) may rejoin the game without following the above procedure. They become a player again immediately upon request.

I'm sorry to cast a no vote so early in the process, but I don't see how this solves the sockpuppet problem at all. It solves the Second Account for Making Jokey Comments problem, but basically opens the doors wide open to any sock puppeteer with even a modicum of self-control.

I'd rather have jay reading the logs and exposing the wicked, honestly.

To prevent being banned, I will abide by ctmf's ruling and not vote here. If I were able to vote, I would vote against this proposal as it attempts to retroactively remove me from the player list.

I will continue playing normally once this turn is complete.

It's alright, gerryblog. This wasn't going to pass anyway.

Just as an aside, it seems those who were arguing that the ruling should stand into turn 310 are on even shakier ground if the exact same wording of the ruling has failed to be adopted as a rule by the standard procedures.

#

That certainly would/will be an interesting situation.

It's a fine stopgap measure, but it's bad news long-term. I agree that flatluigi will likely have some interesting judgments to make during my turn.

Interesting, to say the least. I've got something nice in store.

I'm intrigued. We should compare notes.

Sorry, we're not teammates. I'll try to fit you in somewhere.

You are acting like team-mates. I declare that gerryblog and flatluigi are a team.

#

Then I declare all three Aarons a team, and therefore all banned because one of them voted while one of them cannot under that penalty.

I voted "no" for point reasons, since unanimity was already lost.

But the Aaron doppleganger is just a sockpuppet, with no player status. How can a non-player be a member of a team?

#

I throw myself on the fire for poor, unloved Abron, and this is how I'm repaid?

True. Anyway, declaring these is just words; the rules say that there are no such things as teammates in a game on the computer.

For that matter, I declare jay to be a penguin.

A flighted penguin, even.

That's all right, because jay's already declared himself the winner (check his profile). Can a penguin win the game?

AAA Abron B Abronson and I have no player status on this turn. Once turn 310 begins, whether or not we are players (and whether or not we are a team) is up to the Judge again.

I voted "no" for point reasons, since unanimity was already lost.

I find that kind of thinking perfectly legal and acceptable, but irritating. After all that work he went to trying to please everyone and make the game a better place, you're going to begrudge him less than a point? I could see doing that after rule 207 goes into effect.

Mainly it irritates me because the pile-on masks the opinion poll function of the vote - I'd like to be able to see if something damn near passed.

Nothing personal, of course.

You're right, I shouldn't join the sharkfest. I've changed my posted vote to reflect my true preference.

I'm voting against (my 2nd "no" vote ever) because I think this proposal would hamstring the game if it passed and one of the "current players" dropped out. Right now we're able to continue when players become derelict because a judge (or possibly someone else via 116) can revoke their player status; no violation of 305, quorums possible. But if we put the player list in the rules then a judge can't legally change it. And we couldn't amend the list because we'd need a quorum. Sorry, flatluigi.

It's alright. I just wish we could have revised it some more, but that's apparently not the way the game's going. Next turn should go a bit better.

I'm sorry, but I just can't throw Abron and Subwolf under the bus like this. NO.

By my count we're still waiting on backseatpilot, tallus, and vernondalhart. veronadalhart quit Spork the other day, so I don't know what that means for his/her status here. backseatpilot and tallus are still around as far as I know, though I don't think either one has been active in the comments lately.

Obviously it hasn't been nearly enough time yet, but I just wanted to lay the tally out.

Sorry, flatluigi, this one fails. When you've taken your points I can post 310.

I calculate my points at (309-291)*(4/14)-10 = -5 points. :(

Flatluigi, you are calculating your score incorrectly. 4/14 rounded to nearest integer=1.

#

So, that's (309-291)*(4/14)-10 = (309-291)-10 = 18-10 = 8 points. That's better, I guess.

4/14 rounded is zero.

Does zero count as an integer?

Yep. I get -10 points. :(

Don't make me get all game-custom on yo' asses.

What would that game custom be?

We have a solid game custom of not carefully following the rules.

#

that the rule is unclear as written, so you should calculate like everyone has so far. Which is, round after multiplying by the approval fraction. Like you did the first time.

Disclaimer: This is not a judgment. I have not been asked to judge it.
IAAJ, but IANYJ (yet)

Alright, then, so it's definitively (309-291)*(4/14)-10 = 205 points, right?

ctmf, you sly bugger :) do you mean he should calculate his score like everyone except you so far?

I think we might need an official judgment to clear up ALL previous calculations.

#

Check my score. I was joking that time.

I second the "thinking we might need a judgment".

And add it said judgment to the shadow ruleset. BTW, can we get a prominent link to that? Directly under the rules link seems the most appropriate place in my opinion.

#

Oh, yeah, click rules, then it expands. I couldn't figure out how to make it stay that way.

Administer Menu, I'll get it.

The current description is inaccurate, I would recommend that this section be renamed "game-custom", and also include the language regarding our SOP on joining, rejoining, etc. Otherwise it is too ephemeral and will be in need of constant revision. Let's let it be an archive - it would be very useful for judges to be able to easily refer to all past decisions when deliberating.

#

I think it's dangerous to use the same words as the ruleset, "game custom," because not everyone has had a crack at modifying that shadow ruleset. It doesn't really represent general game custom, only the rulings of a few judges.

And these issues should be codified into the ruleset and the shadow rules disbanded as quickly as possible anyway.

True. We should get some historians to include all the general rulings since turn 301.

Maybe 3 sections: commandments, game-custom pronouncements, and spirit-of-the-game elaboration.

For example, flatluigi, post your vote is a one-time commandment that doesn't belong there, but the reason for it was a spirit of the game decision that should live on for reference.

It doesn't really represent general game custom, only the rulings of a few judges.

Who didn't make it up out of thin air, but by simply stating what is already going on. In any case, the shadow set may have no force after the turn changes. We'll probably need a judgment on that when it becomes an issue that affects completion of a turn. Right now, that question isn't eligible for judgment (thank god).

I've added some stuff. It is a bit messy, but it is a useful archive. I see no reason to try to "disband" it.

#

Ideally, I would love to see these things pasted right into the rules. Like the Torah (or is it Talmud?) you get the actual rules, and the commentary on them as our wise judges work and pass their wisdom down through the ages. Obviously this is a pure pipe dream...

#

I'm with AAA on that -- Judgments without a sense of precedent are so much nonsense.

Sorry, I was still back on the previous step, Stop AAA From Dictating Future Judge Behavior.