MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

Unless otherwise demanded by a immutable rule, no game decision shall require more than a two-thirds majority of players in agreement (rounded up) to take effect, including the adoption of rule changes and judicial overrides. This rule shall take precedence over all mutable rules.

Unless otherwise demanded by an immutable rule,

Sorry. This part seems unnecessary anyway. In any case the 2/3 thing is good.

One of the rules says that when a mutable rule conflicts with an immutable rule, the mutable rule is rendered entirely void. I wanted to be very clear that this was not the intent...

My intention is to vote yes, gerryblog, based on the successful resolution of my side offer. I would like to wait for the moment though, in hopes of seeing jay implement his side of the bargain first.

#

I'm extremely glad to hear this. You've got time, of course, as we don't nearly have quorum yet.

I am voting no because you are trying to cripple the judiciary, and the judiciary is the only institution I trust in this mixed up world.

That's jibber jabber. That's sockpuppet talk. That's illogical. That's messed up.

Yes from me, that is 1 of 5. Looks like we are going to get to see your eXtreme power judge trick after all, though, gerryblog.

#

Is that star intentionally hideous, jay? I had something smaller and more tasteful in mind...

#

Is that star intentionally hideous, jay?

You have to ask?

1. I think that star would be good if the white were made transparent. (Also if it were twice as big?)

2. I ain't no sockpuppet. Rather, at this moment, I just don't think that a 2/3 majority should be able to overrule a judge.

3. I'll change my vote if everything I type is set to display in enormous, 72 point bold, blinking text.

4. I might be lying about being willing to change my vote, but I haven't decided yet.

I ask other players that might vote No on this to indicate whether they would support this proposal if it were solely about 2/3rds majority for voting.

I MIGHT HAVE OTHER REASONS TOO. I AM PLAYING THIS GAME SO DEEP.

Although I am obligated to vote yes here, I would much prefer it as you describe, jay, with the proposal voting only.

#

Look, there has to be some way to overrule a judge, doesn't there? Otherwise crazy shit will happen.

All this does is take the requirement for overruling a judge from 13 players ("unanimous consent of the other players") to 10 players (2/3 majority rounded up). That's three more players. That doesn't cripple anything.

I ask that everyone planning on changing their votes to cost me points please wait until 1 responds. I swear I'll leave ample time for point-costing vote-changing if 1 won't change their vote.

PS, just saying:

Oh my god can we please get rid of this dumbass unanimous vote requirement before fiddling around with petty shit like this?

I will be voting FUCK NO.

# By 1 at 04/24/2008 - 15:49

Gerry, I feel your pain. In that I understand that you are in pain. All I can do is give you assurances that everything happens for a reason, and that He leaves the strength from those He takes from us so we will be all right.

Seeing as 1 already figured out his own 72 point bold blinking text, I'm at a loss.

You're cutting MeFiNo's throat, not mine. You were right the first time, the dumbass unanimous vote requirement *is* killing this game.

jay: and you were right the first time, it's sock-puppet logic, there's nothing we can do but run with a similar majority-rules proposal again on 311 and hope whoever the judge is takes a firmer hand.

Who will be the judge on 311? I hope he's got big brass cojones.

#

I agree that 1 is a sockpuppet and would heartily support an invocation to have his vote on 310 nullified as it violates 207.

I hold in my hand a list of 52 sockpuppets in MeFiNo...

(volkspider: I was planning on doing that if the vote comes out to 14-1. If it looks like a legit player wants to vote against 310 too, then it's not worth it. But maybe I'm wrong and someone should j'accuse immediately so people don't start switching their votes for points purposes.)

Then heartily invoke it, and ask about the shadow ruleset while you're at it.

I'd like to state for the record that I have had direct email and chats with the person that is the owner of the "1" account. He is a real person.

#

jay: if 1 is actually a sock, you have his/her explicit consent to expose it:

If it's not against the rules, then what I'm doing isn't against the rules. Whatever it is you're accusing me of.

I'm talking about "sockpuppetry." Based on the rules as they currently stand, no one except a judge may rule on who is and isn't an eligible player.

You can post our IPs or whatever without it breaking the rules. Just don't do anything that breaks the rules!


# By 1 at 05/12/2008 - 01:36

For the purposes of evidence, I mean.

AAA is 1?

I am most definitely NOT 1. I have created the current invocation in order that this cancer on our game be cut away, and that my good name (and 1's legitimacy as a real player) is no longer in question.

#

I like the abstain option. That should always be there.

I agree. I was hoping it would attract those who would otherwise vote against this, but alas.

points: (310-291) * (10/11) = 17 (rounded) - 10 = 7

I see what you did there.

I see what he did too--he took points before all players had voted, in violation of rules 305 and 202.

Unfortunately, you guys decided not to vote. As game tradition holds -- see our very early discussions on this -- participation has many meanings and includes many possible actions, including nonaction.

(Ideally I would have kept voting open, but flatluigi was completely running amuck and this was the best/only way to shut him down. If you can get a majority of players to agree with you that we should return to flatluigi's reign of terror, we will, but otherwise we're all going to have to accept a little bit of judicial silliness in exchange for not having the game trashed.)

Game tradition also holds that players who do not vote must be judged not to be players in order for the vote to be ended. I do not see that any judge nor alleged judge did this with respect to turn 310.