MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

Hey guys, we have another new one among us! Glad you've joined us, SubWolf!

You've picked a difficult moment to join, though. You are not permitted to vote in the current (309) poll, as ctmf has pulled a bunch of byzantine entry requirements out of his something-or-other.

The good news is, they are only valid for this current turn. Once 309 is done you can jump right in and begin playing normally.

Let's all welcome SubWolf! Hooray!

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

We have now been discussing 309 for over one week, with the game stalled accordingly. In light of the fact that a reasonable time has been allowed for a debate, and in light of the fact that the failure of 309 is almost a near certainty anyway, I ask that debate be ordered ended and the vote held.

This forum is for planning out-of-nomic experiences.

I will make a last attempt at assuming that we are all playing nomic here in good faith...

Judge ctmf, I put these questions to you:
Should jay be permitted to look into server logs in order to benefit himself as a player?
Is it right and acceptable that, if a player is also the main site admin, he use the extra powers and information at his disposal to benefit his own game position?
Should the main site admin also be a player in the game?

Discussion: I know that jay of course can do all of the above things, but in a just world there would be a Chinese curtain in place to prevent him from doing so. He is not looking to stop cyber-attacks or spambots here, or prevent malicious viruses or trojans. He is using his admin powers to gain an edge over the other players.

A recent judgment determined our current list of players. I invoke judgment on whether non-players should be barred from posting to Proposal, Invocation, Judgment and official Pre-Proposal Discussion threads.

Joining the Game

The question of whether a new player may join the game, and how that should be controlled has recently become the subject of controversy. The answer to these questions has the potential to greatly affect the play of the game.

Superficially, it would seem simple. No Rule prohibits or specifies any qualifications or prerequisites for joining a game in progress. Therefore, by Rule 116, the joining of new players is explicitly permitted and, significantly, unregulated. By Rule 212, specifically the clause requiring judgments to be in accordance with the rules in effect, any judgment prohibiting or regulating the act of joining the game would be contrary to Rule 116 and thus illegal.

We have never set in stone the process for becoming a new player and have just assumed that everyone who has joined after the start of the game is a player. I currently have a proposal in the works that allows any new players to officially join, but some of the new 'players' are offended that they are not included in my list and may vote it down.

What I'm asking ruling on is, after changing the player list in my discussion to include all players who have been here since the start of the game and have not since lapsed, whether any players who have joined since that start are temporarily not players until we have established some sort of method to induct them.

I would most respectfully ask that judge ctmf take the time to actually read and consider this invocation, prior to lumping it in with the other recent cases.

Your honor, it would appear that someone is attempting to have me surreptitiously purged from the player list, by registering the account "AAA Aaron A. Aaronson". Although I am often called this, my actual account handle is "Aaron A Aaronson". Your recent rulings regarding current players mention "AAA Aaron A. Aaronson" as a player, but not "Aaron A Aaronson".

Could you clarify which account is to be considered the One True Aaron player? If it is indeed your intent that the interloper be included and that I be excluded, I will blindly and obediently withdraw from all further play.

This is now copypasta from the recent judgement on accounts.

"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.

I invoke judgement on (1) whether ctmf can retroactively purge players he hates from the player list, and; (2) whether we are playing this game based on the rules, or on the whims of the current judge.

In the poor guy's defense, he has met the conditions initially put forth by esteemed judge ctmf for being a player, and up to this point he has done nothing wrong except (1) make a poor choice of username, and; (2) got onto ctmf and gerryblog's "DO NOT WANT" list.

If we are living in an autocracy, just spell it out your honor, and stop pretending that you are basing your decisions on the rule of law.

The allocation of two voting userIDs to a single individual is plainly in violation of "207. Each player always has exactly one vote."

I ask that AAA and ABA's votes therefore each be split in half to allow for consistency with 207.

See first comment for initial thoughts.

I'm now leaning towards this 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.

Who are the players of this game?

I invoke judgement during turn 308

Assertion to be judged: To be a player, a person must be a MeFi registered user. No MeFi user may be more than one MeFi Nomic player. Exception: players who voted on a previous turn may remain players (non-retroactive application)

Qualification to be judged:
players currently disagree: (not established yet)
affects completion of the current turn: yes

Supporting evidence:
(a) The name of the Nomic is MetaFilter Nomic.

(b) The initial premise of the game was that players would play in order of MeFi username thereby implying that a player would have a MeFi username, and furthermore, that no two MeFiNo players would have the same MeFi username.

(c) This affects the completion of the current turn (308) in that the addition of sockpuppets changes the required number of consent grants to move on.

(d) This is still turn 308, since turn 309 has not yet begun.

I hereby invoke judgment on the the interpretation of "the consent of a majority of other players" in rule 212: must the consent be explicitly given, or does a failure to explicitly object constitute implicit consent?