Rather than assume all current players will be active in the next round, let's explicitly sign up here.
To kick off discussion of the format, here are a few things we can do:
- Continue with the current ruleset, after patching it to fix transfer wins.
- Constitutional quorum: start with a new complete ruleset.
- Minimalist: start with a single rule (worked well for Spork.)
- Themed: start with an existing game (e.g. chess) and expand from there.
... or wot? We're wide open but need some sort of consensus in the end.
Let's not jump the gun here. I think gerryblog may yet come around.
What do you guys think about a follow-up MetaTalk post?
I think it's completely appropriate. What about Projects or even the blue?
Somebody needs to call out veteran players Taksi and Chuck for bailing on us.
ssg: gerryblog is already touting the win on other sites, I'm pretty sure the dark side has eaten his soul beyond regurgitation.
An example of starting with a single rule:
A player is a Homo Sapien voluntarily participating in MeFiNo, and may vote on Proposals submitted after that player's account creation date.
If at least half the players that have connected to MeFiNo within 14 days vote within 48 hours of a Proposal's posting, and more players vote or revote Yes than vote No before such expiration, then the Proposal shall be considered approved and its text shall be executed.
Wait a minute, Aaron and I are having a civil chat. The game must be over.
Here's something I had drafted to post to Projects a few weeks ago:
MeFiNo - Metafilter Nomic
311. A player is one free-willed human [Metafilter] member voluntarily playing the game of [MeFiNo Nomic], and this insuperable definition may only be changed by modifying this rule.
"Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move... Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed." -- Peter Suber, The Paradox of Self-Amendment.
See also its spin-off nomic, [Spork], with [multiplayer chess], [global thermonuclear war], [inter-player contracts and banking], and no mefi membership requirement. Both games are open to new players, so grab a plate of your favorite beans and join the overthinking.
[previously][previously][previously]
I should have looked back here, sorry I already posted to Metatalk... jay, I searched for your MeFi handle but don't know which jay you are over there... so get to that thread and add your wisdom please.
I'd like to sign up for the next game.
This sounds fun and I want in.
For the record, I'm in.
I would probably like to play again, conditional on what the starting conditions will be.
What conditions strike your fancy, Aaron?
Are they perhaps shiny, AAA?
Hello. I'd like to blay a game.
I see no point in playing given the cluster fuck that happened the first time. It appears that at any time anyone can decide they've won then shut down the game and give up despite this being clearly illegal. Why bother putting in effort to have it thrown in my face like that again?
Complicating matters is the fact that this first game may not be over given the fact that ssg was right about the "vote" language in 313. I've posted two judgments to complement the first judgment on my ruling. If these are two be overruled, a majority of the 11 current players minus myself must vote to overrule A SPECIFIC RULING, at which time this specific question goes to the next judge in the playing order.
Given that the previous player in the playing order is on a submarine for 3 months, it may be best for us to accept that the first game has ended fairly amicably and start the second with more reasonable starting conditions. Or else we'll figure out some other workaround to the ctmf situation; we've handed worse.
I do wish, however, that people would dial back the histrionics and attempt to look at the situation from a more detached perspective. We passed a law that turned out to have an interesting loophole: it specifically banned only a particular type of transfer rather than the wider category of transfer it may have seemed to ban. This loophole was exploited, resulting in victory for gerryblog-on-behalf-of-the-SCVF.
It's an ambiguous situation, and reasonable people may disagree on whether "within 51 points or fewer from the victory condition" actually also bans totals 52 points or more from the victory condition as well. I think people who argue that are wrong, but at least it's an argument. Make an argument, play the game, accept its terms -- don't just vote that No One Else Can Ever Win.
It's an ambiguous situation, and reasonable people may disagree on whether "within 51 points or fewer from the victory condition" actually also bans totals 52 points or more from the victory condition as well.
Please hear that, everyone. I am perhaps a more mellow type, but imagining myself on the losing end of this situation I am pretty sure I would accept the current situation as a legal win.
Shellycat, this is not anyone just saying they've won, it's just that my co-conspirators figured out a loophole in the latest rule... and by the way, thanks again for your "fucking around" with my points in the PTF, it's what gave me the idea to do it this way. :) So this victory is in a memetic sense triggered by you! Congratulations!
Are they perhaps shiny, AAA?
ssg, no it isn't about that. I am wondering what others' take is on this suber set. it seems many are against this "legalese" stuff, whereas to me it's what I imagined nomic would be and I enjoy this. (this is what I have said repeatedly elsewhere) Starting with no rules / one rule will lead us to... you know where. It will be bad bad.
You're making stuff up again.
I want to clarify a stance: the legalese is the game. My complaints about being "mired in legalese" were completely about our initial situation when we didn't know who the players were, how to vote, and other very basic parts of gameplay you generally figure out before you start.
I still consider the ruleset busted, as evidenced by exactly the scenario I've been squawking about: a judge awarding himself a win based on his own rule, where under opposite circumstances he would likely argue against those exact same actions.
(anybody who thinks that was a clean win is purposely self-delusional. take the win, move on.)
I think the quickest path to round two is fix the point transfer problem, make all rules mutable, and I'll post the first proposal.
Is there any strong disagreement?
Because reverting to the "Suber 20" has been mentioned, I want to rant a bit about it. In passing I'll mention Peter himself has acknowledged some serious flaws in his published ruleset.
We definitely don't want to revert to a situation where we don't know who the legal players are, or how to join the game.
Team play should be either defined or removed.
We need a more clear description of exactly when a player's turn starts, and the terms of ascension and retirement of judges.
Certain parts of the Shadow Ruleset should be properly incorporated, and the rest discarded, so that players can conform to and plan against actual rules and not contradictory game tradition.
Going forward I'd like to see sweeping democratic reform of the judicial system, but that can be built from within.
My main point is that while some of the fireworks were amusing, if we're to play a proper game then everyone should be using the same dictionary. There's been too much semantic wiggle room because the ruleset has been hard to follow to the letter.
Nomics can be won without everyone getting pissed off, it happens monthly. None of them start with the ruleset we did.
In hindsight, it was brave of us, and I'm proud we pulled off the biggest baddest Suber 20 installation in years. I'm happy to move forward with the extra bits we've achieved, I just urge us not to return to MeFiNo Day 1.
(we could construct a scaffolding around S20 to *make* it work, but we might as well make them real rules, IMO)
BUMPing the Next Round discussion thread.
Nomics can be won without everyone getting pissed off
I saw that as a feature, not a bug?
so that players can conform to and plan against actual rules and not contradictory game tradition.
I'll add that part of the problem here has been that the "it takes exactly 200 points to win" ruling was not taken seriously by players, causing confusion when it unexpectedly became an important issue. Judgment without precedent is nonsensical -- we never got to the point where the rules changed randomly every turn, but we were pretty close.
Nomics can be won without everyone getting pissed off // I saw that as a feature, not a bug?
I think you're telling the truth, and it makes me sad.
Judges are not bound by the decision of prior judges. You're putting too much weight on precedence. The last hope fallback of "game tradition" is a two-edged sword, and relying on it too much lets dishonest judges affect the whole future.
Things like "exactly 200 points" need proper codification into the ruleset.
I sign up. Please, my vote is for some version of the Suber ruleset.
What if round 2 were an Imperial Nomic, with gerryblog as permanent judge?
I sign up. Thank you.
That would mean I could rule myself the winner instantly!
No, I'd be good.
I'd still like to experiment with a panel of three judges as a check on activism.
jay, is the intention to keep all of this stuff for archival purposes, and you will start a new branch / node for the next game? Or will we zero everything out and play here?
It seems people are ready - let's get a new player list up, and continue proposals regarding the starting format.
I would only add to this that a proper override of the victory has still not yet been attempted. I can't imagine the votes aren't there. But if that's not happening, yeah, a new player list, talking, the whole deal.
I intend to keep the whole history as a permanent archive. The player list should be reset to include only those who have opted in on this thread.
Do we want to start next round without solving some of the meta-problems beforehand?
I think I may sit out the next round, at least for a while. It's been a lot of fun, but I'm still smarting a bit from the way the first game ended, and I think things might go better without me in the second. Best of luck with it.
Don't go - see my upcoming post in shelleycat's thread.
Do we want to start next round without solving some of the meta-problems beforehand?
We should discuss more, yes! I think we need a more official "here we go" sort of startup, jay. Let's get a new player list and a new thread to hash these things out. I was hoping for some sort of clean slate... for some of us this is round 2, but it is also a new game and we have first timers joining in... Can this other stuff be archived, or can we move to a new branch of the site, or whatever?
And we haven't heard from everyone. I think the newcomers are sort of waiting for this game to officially wrap, so they can be properly invited in...
I think before we start we should determine who can be a player. Anyone? Just MeFi members?
Yes, only mefi members.
i'm in for round two!
So what is it going to take to get this party started?
I'm coming up, so you better get this party started.
Oh - shit.
Can you hear that?
But seriously, what are we waiting on to get the new game started?
ok, someone email me when this thing gets started...