Home ยป MeFiNo Rules

Shadow Rule Set

What is this document?

This document consists of significant judgements that have contributed to MeFiNo's game-custom. It is a living document, and players are encouraged to add judgements they feel should be included here. It is intended to act as an archive and reference for players and judges alike.

When do rules take effect?
Part 1
Part 2
ctmf: When does a non-participating player cease to be a player?
I also find, however, that the rules are unclear or silent as to what should be done when the player whose turn arrives shows no sign of particiaption. After considering game-custom and the spirit of the game, I judge that flatluigi has voluntarily forfeited the game per Rule 113. flatluigi may rejoin at a later time without penalty per Rule 314.

When does a turn begin?

My turn is over, therefore I am now the previous player, without regard to exactly who the current player is. It suffices to stipulate that there exists some player who is the current player, and that that player's turn has begun.

What does 116 w.r.t. unauthorized editing of the player list?

This decision was simplified by the length of time since flatluigi has participated in the game. Had it been only a day or two, it would have been a much more difficult question to judge.

[upon realizing he voted on 319]

Mm. You're right, shelleycat. He voted in 319, which was posted on 6/27. It's been less than a week.

I stand by my judgement, but suspend it for 48 hours, the commonly accepted waiting period. If flatluigi shows up, it's his turn, otherwise gerryblog's turn begins.

When does a turn begin?
Was 311 a crypto-amendment of 203?
What is the status of the shadow ruleset?
Who are the players of this game?
gerryblog's take.
jay's take.
During turn 311, Aaron invoked judgment on the status of his side deal. gerryblog's decision established that there exist categories of game behavior (contracts, side deals, Drupal/blogshare structures, etc) that are permitted and unregulated by the wording of Rule 116, which are governed by the "when the rules are silent" clause of Rule 212.


Please note the distinction between "regulated" and "governed" that is being made in the above.

The following question was invoked by gerryblog during turn 311.
Invocation: Has the adoption of rule-changes become impermissible?

Rule 114 instructs us that the adoption of rule changes must never become completely impermissible. This is an immutable rule.

Rule 203 (a mutable rule) states "A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. 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."

It has become clear that unanimity is impossible to reach among this group at this time. The one time it was ever reached, several turns and over one month ago, it was only accomplished by removing several players from the player rolls in clear contravention of rule 105/305, which states "Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes." This action is all the more egregious in that the question at hand was the transmutation of 105 itself. Because it is incumbent upon all judges to abide by all rules now in effect (Rule 101, Rule 212), the current judge cannot in good conscience countenance similar malfeasance.

The rules automatically cycle to "majority rules" in a minimum of 24 turns, which at our current rate of completion will take us approximately 36 weeks.

In our current context, several players have indicated certain desires that clearly contravene each other's on the question of time limits, on the question of unanimity, and on the definition of a player. There is also reason to believe that sock puppets, trolls, and other persons not playing good faith may be deliberately torpedoing proposals that would otherwise have unanimous support for their own purposes and for their own amusement.

To clarify matters, I personally guarantee here and now I will vote no on every proposal that comes before me until such a time as proposals can be passed by some means other than unanimous consent.

Such a state of affairs has made the passage of rule changes entirely impermissible in practice, if not in principle. This is untenable, and entirely contrary to the spirit of a game played by taking turns changing the rules. This is also, as a practical matter, a crisis of sustainability -- I and others strongly believe there will not be a game in 36 weeks if the matter of unanimity is not somehow dealt with expeditiously.

I therefore ask -- insisting upon my disagreement with the current state of affairs, in accordance with Rule 212 -- whether Rule 114 demands the that Rule 203 be declared entirely void, in accordance with the hierarchy established by Rule 110.

JUDGMENT by gerryblog

I reluctantly take up the mantle of judge to decide this question. I find that I cannot avoid doing so, as rule 212 only states that "the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question," the only exception to which is that "no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate." As it is not my turn and jay is not my team-mate, I must conclude that I am placed in the unenviable position of settling my own invocation.

I find my argument to be sound. Rule changes away from unanimity have indeed been blocked by the irreconcilable disagreements of a small number of players, and my promise to vote no on every proposal for the next 24 turns / 36 weeks -- regarding which I am confident we can take me at my word -- creates a situation in which no rule changes will be able to passed for nearly a year. This is clearly in contravention to the spirit of 114, and, I believe, the very letter of 114.

Therefore I find that rule 203 as it currently stands would indeed seem to conflict with rule 114.

However, I cannot rule that 203 is void. Such a ruling would again place us in a situation in which rule-changes are completely impermissible, insofar as 203 is currently our only mechanism for passing proposals. Therefore 114 simultaneously demands that 203 be both voided and maintained.

This brings us dangerously close to a rules paradox, but there is a solution.

Rule 203 posits that at the end of the second circuit of turns, play shall switch to majority rules. Therefore it is not in any way contrary to the *spirit* of 203 that voting be done on a majoritarian basis: quite the contrary. The problem is merely the time it takes to reach the end of the second circuit in mail and computer games. This important structural differences between in-person and by-mail/by-computer games is explicitly noted in rules 201 and 202; we can only attribute it to a momentary failing of the founders' attention that they failed to adjust 203 accordingly for the Internet age as well.

Therefore, in order to reconcile the obvious contradiction between 114 and 203 in such as a way as to make further play possible, in accordance with game custom and the spirit of Nomic, I can only hold that for the remainder of my term as judge, and until overturned by law or later Judge, proposals shall be able to be passed on the basis of a simple majority.

It is so ordered.

:bangs gavel

gerryblog's tumultuous tenure as judge issued several quick judgments to a game in crisis:
* Play is presumed to continue to the next round after judgment has been invoked unless the objections of a majority of players are made explicit in some way. (here) The consent of a majority of players to move on is assumed unless demonstrated otherwise.
* A player must achieve exactly 200 (positive) points to win the game. (here)
* The game does not end when a player is said to have won; in fact play continues normally. (here)
* Points may not be arbitrarily awarded outside the procedures listed in rules 202, 204, and 206. (here)
* The current players are the 14 listed in the "list of players" as of 5/15/08. As there is no procedure listed in the rules to join a game in progress, judgment must be invoked for a player to be added. (here)
The following judgments of an on-going nature were made during turn 309. Under some theories of MeFiNo jurisprudence, these judgments apply in perpetuity until ruled otherwise. Under other theories, they do not.

vernondalhart, ssg, offby1, and possibly other players joined in progress, and were not required to have any prior qualifications. They were also not required to ask permission of some fraction of the current users. Most, but not all, of the people who have been considered players up to this point have MeFi usernames I can find. Not all usernames are the same as MeFi usernames. Therefore, by relying on game-custom, the judgment would have to be that joining the game as a player requires no qualification, no approval of current players, and no matching MeFi username.

the spirit of the game requires that where the Rules refer to a "player" they mean one individual person. With that the case, the presence of multiple accounts by a single person ("sockpuppets") violates the spirit of Rule 207, and are therefore prohibited.

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)

and no others.

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 of 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.

There is no procedure for accusing a current player of being a sockpuppet. During this turn, the current players are assumed to not be sockpuppets.

Expires when turn 310 begins

Non-players may not cast votes in polls. A penalty for a non-player voting shall be imposed as the site admin (jay) determines appropriate, as a TOS violation.

the intention of the rules is that the player state his proposal, hear objections, take them into consideration, then post the (possibly revised) proposal for voting. Not to allow a continuous rules-by-committee cycle of revision/argument/revision/argument ad infinitum, which causes excessive game delay.

The following questions:

1. Is it acceptable to disregard the rulings of a judge, even when it seems that the judge is not following the rules?

2. Can the judge use his powers of logic and reason to define the scope of the invocation as he sees fit, and to answer related questions he feels are relevant to the invocation?

3. Do admins here on the site have any further authority or status that authorizes them to work outside the bounds of the rules?

4. Is it legal or illegal for a judge to urge his successors to take into account his rulings when considering similar cases in the future?

Were answered in turn 305 thus:

1. The judge is the ultimate authority in this game, and his rulings must be taken as the word of law. If we allow the most active players or admins to force the pace of the game and disregard the institution of judgeship we will all be lost. Do we want to be like Pakistan, with those who have the guns ruling as they please? Of course not. That is why it is crucial that even when we disagree with an individual judge or ruling, we nevertheless respect the institution and do not trample roughshod over rulings.

2. The answer is YES. It is not the job of mere players to debate and question and reinterpret the ruling in a way that suits them, or that they feel better reflects our written laws. Players DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to debate and interpret and accept / reject rulings of judges. There is only ONE clearly defined remedy for a player who wishes to challenge a judge, and that is by opening a (unanimous) vote to overrule.

For the record, the court applauds jay insofar as he followed the proper procedure in the "improper judgment by AAA" invocation.

The court also censors ctmf, ssg, and volkspider and all others who disrespected the legal ruling of my predeseccor and felt it was within their remit to declare sections of the ruling illegal.

3. Admins here have a very important role. First and foremost that role is to act as the instruments of the duly appointed judges and carry out their will blindly and obediently. Admins must work especially hard to separate their roles as instruments of the court from their own interests as individual players.

Again, the court condemns ctmf in the strongest possible terms for his casual and intentional disregard of the judgment that he was given the position of trust to carry out.

4. It is of crucial importance to the future health of this game that the institution of judgeship gains strength and scope. A judge may make whatever urgings he wishes to his successors in order that game tradition and custom may be established.

Further commentary from the judge, regarding question 1.:

What you guys are missing here is that the reason judgment is invoked is because the rules are unclear. That is why we bring in the opinion of the judge - to adjudicate the rules. Ignoring a judgment that is "obviously wrong" is a dangerous precedent to set.

During turn 303:

When does a vote officially open?

When the "vote" thread is opened. If the player does not post the text being voted on, the text will be assumed to be that at the head of the relevant proposals thread. This text is editable - the player should edit the text that appears there to keep it up to date rather than post revisions in the thread.

Secondly, how can a player be considered to have participated in a vote if it's closed before they even see it?

They cannot be considered to have participated in the situation you have described. This is why we must try to interpret the intent of the original writers of our currently flawed set of laws, and implement them in our new context in a way that allows us to continue the game. Keep in mind that these rules were written with the intention of being used by a a group physically present within a room. The concepts of "player" are very different here. Imagine we were all sitting in the same room, blind, calling for a player to vote - how long would our calls continue before we decided that the person in question had left the room, and was no longer intending to play, and was therefore not a player anymore?

A person who is not participating is not a player. Therefore, by definition, every player will participate in every vote. Your question seems pressing, shellycat, because of the unclear usage of the word "player".

This decision has led to an ongoing game custom, upheld since that time, in which the current judge purges the player list of non-participants when voting is closed.

In turn 305:

As established in our most recent judgment, the judge has the right to use his powers of logic and reason to define the scope of the question as he sees fit.

There are three related issues here: is 305 over? do we need to vote? what becomes of non-voters on 305?

The turn is not over until the player has calculated his points, something backseatpilot has done. However, an invocation was put forward prior to that point.

Gerryblog is quite right in his argument regarding the need for a vote. As we have seen now in a large number of consistent judicial rulings, a formal vote is not necessary to "consent to move on".

Why is this relevant? Because the question has been posed "Is the turn over?". To say "yes, the turn is over" would mean that it is time for 306, not time for a vote to see if we are now allowed to move to turn 306.

Finally, at the moment bsp has calculated points, notwithstanding this invocation which holds up play procedure, my term on the bench is complete. Any invocations past that point will be judged by my honourable successor, backseatpilot, because it will be turn 306.

Any vote taken regarding the turn status will be an illegal vote, and I urge those with respect for the bench to ignore such a vote and not participate. I urge next guy to ignore any vote, and begin his turn immediately upon backseatpilot claiming points and declaring his turn complete. i.e., right now.

As per our long game custom, upheld by extensive judgments, any non-participants should be removed from the player list at the point bsp claims the vote is over and takes points. The court applauds ctmf for taking this action without further coaxing and goading form the bench, and trusts that the site admins will from now on perform this court-appointed task without the need for further instruction and guidance.

This was a contentious judgment, and players have continued to post polls for consent to move on in contravention of the ruling of the judge in this case.