MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

This vote is to vacate gerryblog's last pronouncements that award him a win in flagrant violation of the intent of the rule he just wrote and we all just passed.

Haha, oh Jay. I love how you were fine with this piece of crazy judge-gone-amok ruling by Gerryblog which clearly contravened the word and spirit of the rules, but are OUTRAGED by his interpretation of a very gray area ("too close to call," in my awesome opinion) of a rule that he himself wrote.

Moveon.com, Jay.

Smarty-pants, this is just a stall tactic so I can win the parent nomic while this win is tied up in red tape.

And gerryblog isn't capitalized.

And moveon is an .org, I think.

Looking at your link, I don't see a discrepancy in my stance. Both times I'm simply trying to keep the game going.

The vote I just cast was on behalf of ctmf, braving serving the SCVF somewhere out there under the sea. God bless ctmf, God bless the SCVF, and God bless the USA.

Shame, gerryblog, shame! Judge according to the rules, not your self-interest.

So sometimes you're in favor of "flagrant violation[s] of the intent of the rule " and sometimes you're not?

Hm. If that's the case, I'm surprised that your objection here was that this is a flagrant violation of the intent of the rule, as it seems like you don't really care whether it is or isn't. (See: the much worse gerry-gudgment you supported.) Hypocrite!

Bore!

no u

I really hope this game ends! Because if it doesn't, what we essentially have is a situation in which the unwritten rule is "you aren't allowed to win, ever". In that case, I guess I would have to accept jay's prison analogy.

#

Actually, I've made a terribly mistake in calculating the possibility of a judicial override. If the threshold is 2/3 of players, then it is quite possible that 7 players could vote to override gerryblog's decision, as there are ten players left (not counting gerryblog). Vote to overrule!

I can make a strong case that ctmf is under contract (via another site) not to win MeFiNo, and gerryblog's inclusion of his vote in these shenanigans is improper or even reversible.

I want to point out from rule 12:
"A player who does not vote within 48 hours of a vote opening is considered to have abstained."
I am not certain about whether the timestamp I see here is local or what, but by my math this poll will close in a little over 12 hours.

#

sorry make that rule 312

#

On second look, if ctmf's vote is subtracted per his contractual obligations, gerryblog's judgment that the point transfers are legal is overridden.

This wasn't even a legal poll. You can't override my "gerryblog's win," because that was never invoked, and is unquestioned given the legality of the transfers. You have to poll to override the question on whether the transfers were legal. In that thread, we should discuss, as Nomic logicians, the question in a detached and reasonable way.

Which is the sticking point? Is it the legality of the transfer, or the definition of "victory condition"? What are the alternatives to what I ruled? Are they desirable, or in line with MeFiNo Nomic legal history?

"Did gerryblog win?" is a question on which people are obviously going to be inclined to vote No, so let's go slow, be reasonable, and talk this out. We should start by identifying which of my judgments is really in controversy, and why that is, with an eye towards what is fair, not what is advantageous to party X or Y.

You might also leave the legality of the transfers alone and rule instead on the "victory condition" issue, which may be more to the point. There again, there is a conversation to be had. But it's not a conversation that begins with overcharged accusations of cheating or hypocrisy -- it begins with a calm analysis of the specific legal questions involved. ssg is the model here -- he convinced me of the majority vote issue in 313, after all, which flows to my detriment, simply by calming aiming at the nitty-gritty of the rules.

I am open to the possibility that under the rules, the SCVF will lose this fight, though attempting to be objective and neutral as possible I honestly don't think we should. Those on the other side should be as open to the possibility that the SCVF may be right that an unexpected loophole has been exploited for a victory.

jay, are you talking about this contract? That's *really* a stretch, and you must know that. ctmf didn't try to win MeFiNo, I did, and "gerryblog can cast my vote any way he wishes" is pretty clear.

I actually heard from ctmf the other day. I won't publish the MeFiMail, but he's not unhappy with the victory, and described it as "totally legit."

He also pushed, as I will push now, for another crack at the Suber rules. I'd rather do that than the start-with-one thing. I think we'd even be able to get rid of unanimity without a complete debacle this time.

"This vote is to vacate gerryblog's last pronouncements that award him a win in flagrant violation of the intent of the rule he just wrote and we all just passed."

This is to overturn your whole judgment, so the previous player rules on it instead. Admittedly this does us little good, but it is completely legitimate.

I should say, so there's no ambiguity, that this poll was closed last night as part of ssg's invocation on what constitutes a judicial override. A legitimate poll would be specific as to the question and the ruling that is potentially being overruled -- this is what 313 says we have to do.

And Mr. Jay, unless yo want to dispute the wishes of a valiant submariner, ctmf's vote is gerryblog's to do with as he wishes in cases where shelleyblog and I disagree. If you want to belittle the sacrifice of men in uniform, do be my guest, but I wouldn't stoop so low for the sake of a game.

#

jay: You can't run a poll on "pronouncements." You can only overrule a specific question.

And regardless, this poll has no legs. Let that be an important message to those still scrabbling in the dirt before the tank treads of the SCVF.

#

As a vet, I advise you to shut your trap before your flippant use of "sacrifice" gets you in trouble.

gerryblog, there was a very specific call to action at the top of this thread. The "gerryblog's win" is just a title.

I acknowledge ctmf's vote. I *would* have a leg to stand on if he had joined your team.

gerryblog, you're making stuff up. This is what the law says:

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled by a vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun.

I started a vote on overruling the Judge's Judgment.

Will someone not on your team tell me what magic keyword I'm missing?

The Judge's Judgment may be overruled by a vote of the other players taken before the next turn is begun. If a Judge's Judgment is overruled, then the player preceding the Judge in the playing order becomes the new Judge for the question, and so on, except that no player is to be Judge during his or her own turn or during the turn of a team-mate.

The key word is "the question." "gerryblog won / gerryblog did not win" is not a question that can be voted on. The question that should have been polled is Were these recent point transfers legal?

And we can still poll that question. But let's do it right -- "Did someone else win" is not only inflammatory, but it's misleading, and the presence of your opinion in the first comment doesn't mitigate the issue the basic issue that this poll is meaningless under the rules of this game.

and jay: I'm not your enemy. A new poll, legal this time, gives you 48 more hours to make your case and get support. That's *more time* for your cause to gain a majority of players, which in accordance with my *very fair* recent judgment is all you need.

The clock is ticking - I will be closing this poll in ~6 hours, and I am certain that those not voting here are sufficiently demoralized and will not rally to your lost cause, jay.

It is over, jay. The only victory salvageable at this point is to offer your contrite congratulations to the SCVF, and in so doing have yourself removed from the shitlist.

#

AAA -- I actually closed the poll last night when I ruled it illegal. So the situation is worse than you say w.r.t. jay's removal from the shitlist.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this one. I very plainly, in the first comment of this thread, asked that your judgment be overruled, which is what the rule I pasted calls for. You link to the very post that I reference as your "last pronouncement." Per that rule, if this poll had passed, judging would have reverted to ctmf, who isn't around (voting is obviously not judging) and it reverts to your teammates.

This poll is so legitimate I can't in fairness post a repetition of it. Even if I could, it's second verse same as the first, except less eloquently.

gerryblog: he is unclean, having scrabnbled in the dirt; do not take the thing from his hand.

#

I'm not going for victory (contractually bound not to yet, actually), and at this point I'm not even trying to avoid a loss. You'll note my participation in the Round Two thread, and my acceptance of gerryblog's MeFiNo win on the parent nomic.

I'm defending that what *I* did was proper, for academic reasons, possibly for posterity. It's a lazy Sunday. Let's debate when a judge's tenure begins.

gerryblog, do you think you have the authority to call "somebody went for it" on ctmf's behalf so I can retire the MeFiNo Protectorate?

This poll is so legitimate I can't in fairness post a repetition of it. Even if I could, it's second verse same as the first, except less eloquently.

So then you'll agree that your poll has failed and the game is over? I would so much like to remove you from the shitlist given how much you've contributed to the game, jay. Can't we all come together in celebration of the SCVFs righteous victory?

#

'

#

This vote is to vacate gerryblog's last pronouncements that award him a win in flagrant violation of the intent of the rule he just wrote and we all just passed.

* you can't poll on prouncement*s*, only *a pronouncement*
* this is editorial commentary, not an explanation of what is being voted on.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree, but since I'm the judge, my position carries more water at the moment. Post the poll again in a legal manner and we'd both be happy.

Yeah, personally, I'm done, although I will support further arguments from ssg or shelleycat or anyone if I have an insight. You should take special care to retain these players, as without their passion this victory would have been really boring.

gerryblog: do not take the thing from his hand. Whhy do you want to stall our tanks an additional 48 hours? Victory is right here within our grasp, I say we kill him and eat him.

#

Yeah, personally, I'm done

You are almost there, jay. Congratulate the Super Cool Victory Fellowship on their just victory, and you can adjust your status from super-loser to loser.

#

There was editorial comment, yes, but claiming it didn't contain a proper challenge is worse than pedantic.

If there were "pronouncement*s*" to override, then you were wrong in pronouncing them, since only a single question was asked and you're bound to answer only that question.

Aaron, I lost, but you lost on purpose just for the chance to lick the boots of the winner. History will frown on you.

We will bury you.

#

worse than pedantic

jay, again, like the judicial override ruling last night, this ruling is better for you and worse for me. I'm trying to be fair.

Even if I was wrong to do it, this poll has been closed now for about twelve hours. It's clearly illegitimate at this point, again even if I was wrong to close it. If you won't post another poll, don't complain about the illegitimacy of the victory later -- this is your chance to have this overruled, you guys should take it.

I think it is in jay's best interests to blow gerryblog - the line forms behind me :)

#