MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

I second this via the logic jeblis layed out in the mulligan thread.

So, it seems our choice is between a weak-kneed, vacillating communist sympathiser and the bold and decisive Aaron A. Aaronson.

Do we even need to vote? Surely the outcome is obvious.

I promise I shall not let you down, friends.

#

My opponent is an activist judge who will only serve his own political interests. We need someone who can strictly and fairly interpret the rules, not legislate from the bench.

The rules tell us who the judge is: ~, the previous player in the playing order.

I think the correct course of action by the Rules is to contact ~ if possible to be Judge. If ~ cannot be verified to even exist or have any contact info, then remove ~ from the player list and xorry becomes Judge.

ctmf all those things sound nice. The problem is that we don't have clearly defined judge

is ~ the previous player? Technically no one precede the first player (or do they)
Is he/she a player at all?
Does judgeship pass the the previous player?

To be fair to everyone we would vote and have majority rules to determine the answers to the above questions.

Simply voting for a judge seems simpler.

gerryblog, ctmf: No one has taken a turn before !jim, arguments of circularity notwithstanding. There is no provision in the rules for selection of a judge on turn 1, so we are free to name the judge in any way we see fit.

Under the rules, the person who determines whether the judge is legitimately the judge is the judge. ~ is the judge under a commonsense definition of "order" which recognizes that the order goes in a circle. We can vote if everyone wants to vote, but I don't really see the need for it.

(reposted from the other thread; we really need to figure out a good way to keep all this discussion in one place)

xorry makes sense to me, if ~ is no longer involved. I'm not opposed to a vote, in theory, only cognizant of the fact that it's much more extralegal than simply using commonsense definitions of "player" and "order." Given that the judge is the person who determines their own legitimacy as judge, it's going to take an action of sovereign declaration one way or the other, and I would wholeheartedly support xorry ruling that he is in fact the Judge of this round. I would also commit to voting against any attempt to overrule xorry's decision on that point.

Your plate of beans is ready!

Guess we're moving this here:

(Repost)

In order of fairness I'd set it up this way.

consensus vote > majority vote > judge > individual oppinion

Having xorry declare himself the judge is an act of sovereign declaration.
Electing one is not.

Wait, are we playing the game yet or not.

Because if we are currently playing, changing how the judges work without actually having any rules for it is totally lame. You can't just decide "I don't like this rule so I'm going to change it"

I would also not object to xorry self-declaring as Judge and making a ruling, provided the ruling is limited to determining an official list of players to continue/conclude the vote on Prop. 301. (furthermore, that list of players could not logically include ~, since that would defeat his (/her?) legitimacy as Judge)

We don't have to choose or elect a judge. Heres why:

References:

a) one Judge settles all questions arising from the game until the next turn is begun, including questions as to his or her own legitimacy and jurisdiction as Judge. -Art. 212

and

b) All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect;-Art 212

and

c) If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then the player preceding the one moving is to be the Judge and decide the question.-Art 212

Ok, so mental exercise. I hereby declare myself Judge. Are there any objections to my legitimacy? Of course there are. Who decides on the objection? Me, by Ref. a. So I must (Ref. b) rule that I am not the legitimate Judge (ref. C), since at least one other person here (xorry) preceeds notJim more closely.

Suppose every player in the game performs this exercise. The only Judge who would not automatically de-legitimize themself would be xorry, unless ~ shows up in the meantime. Granted, xorry would have to assume that ~ was not a player, but nobody else even gets that close.

So we may as well just go with xorry.

popular vote for initial judge?

I won't object to anything that gets us a judge. Xorry could resonably be seen as judge if ~ can;tt be found. If no one invokes judgement of their status then I think we'd be ok.

Granted, xorry would have to assume that ~ was not a player,
well we would have to assume that ~ is not a player, but hey thats not making a rule about who is a player.

"Player" is not explicitly defined in the rules, so we can have a judgment on who the players are in order to get things moving.

The rules clearly state that Xorry is the judge. Attempts to vote on, or nominate a judge based on ad-hoc "votes" are unlawful and clearly against the spirit of nomic.

I'm happy with xorry being a judge but I do want to know what judgment is being made on. What are the specific issues here? It looks like judges can't change rules exactly, but some clarification of who is or is not playing does seem to be in order.

That's what the judgement is about. A summary, best I can come up with:

The problem is: there's a vote going on. Our player list has some folks listed that haven't even registered on this wiki, and may not even intend to play. The rules say we cannot move on unless everyone participates in the vote, though. So we're stuck.

There's some vagueness in rule 105, in that it says everyone has to participate but does not explicitly say they have to cast a vote. The current judgement is: can we say they have "participated" enough to satisfy rule 105?

Another possible question that has been talked about, though so far no one has officially invoked judgement for it, is whether or not being on the list is sufficient to be a "player" for the purposes of article 105. If the remaining people on the list are not "players," then we can move on without their votes anyway.

The solution probably lies in a combination of the two questions. Those who haven't even registered can't be said to have participated, but they also probably can be considered non-players for the time being. Those who have registered and made comments in the forums haven't voted for whatever reason are certainly players, but possibly could be considered to have participated.

On the other hand, we could withdraw the judgement request, barge on through to the next turn, and see if anyone complains. I'm not sure that follows the spirit of the rules, but it is a way out, and might be simpler.

If I've misrepresented anyone's opinion, feel free to correct me.

For my own part, I'm not sure I'd feel good about doing anything drastic until someone has actively tried to contact the players still to vote and failed.

Since notJim has nicely declared his turn over, we only need to clear any invocations of judgment currently on the table. (if I called for any invocations, I withdraw them)

If any invocations are cleared and we start the next turn, we should be OK.

If not cleared by my turn I will propose notJim's points be reset. Thanks notJim!

shelleycat

I guess we'd fall back on the common definition/role of judges.

1) Someone Invokes judgment on a very specific point of a current rule

Say what does "player" mean? what are implications for rule x?

2) The judge makes a very narrow judgement only based upon what the rules say.

I think ctmf has summed up the areas we're all in disagreement about, i.e. what is a player and what does it mean to have 'participated'. If we can get judgment on that then it might make the whole rule 105 thing go away and play can continue regardless of no-shows.

Rereading the rules earlier it appeared to me the judge has to bring judgment on all points that are disagreed on, then the next turn can start. I move that the areas outlined by ctmf are what is judged on and that we find a judge to do so (currently being discussed over here).

Gah, and by "over here" I mean actually this thread right here. Sorry.

I was wondering about that.

Given the distributed nature of the game -- with players scattered over various time zones and with varying degrees of interest in playing -- I think that the arguments for handing judgement over to xorry so that they can break the deadlock currently underway are good ones.

If this game is to go anywhere with anything less than 'herding cats' success we'll have to democratize the voting mechanism post-freakin'-haste, though.