MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

gerryblog's recent ruling, which allows him to win the game, is that in order to satisfy the victory condition, a player must have exactly 300 points. If this judgement stands, then gerryblog did in fact win, by having points transferred to him, giving him a total of 458 points, and then transferring away those points to leave him with exactly 300 points. If the victory condition is having any number of points greater than 300, then the transfer of points that left gerryblog with 458 points was illegal and gerryblog has not won.

The rule in question is: "The total number of points required to win the game will be 300."

Not only does common sense tell us that having more than 300 points is sufficient to win the game, but gerryblog and the other members of his fellowship originally held the same opinion, which we know because gerryblog claimed victory when he had 458 points and only later transferred away points to leave himself with exactly 300 points. Only later, when his win was called into question, did gerryblog change his tune to preserve his "victory".

This "victory" is not just an insult to the fine players of MeFiNo, but a dangerous precedent for future MeFiNo games. Vote to overrule gerryblog illogical judgement!

One might well ask: what happens if we overrule the judgement and ctmf becomes the judge? Well, in that case, we would have to ask the judge (gerryblog, as the overrule only appoints a new judge for the specific invocation in question) if ctmf is a player, despite not rendering any judgement. I have seen a glimmer of logic beneath his strange judicial pronouncements and I'd wouldn't be surprised if he does the logical thing and rules that ctmf is not a player. If gerryblog rules that ctmf is a player, then I guess this game will be shelved until Oct. 10th, when ctmf returns to the surface. In the latter case, I suggest we start a new game.

I have gone back and forth on this point, it's true, though please note that it was not when the victory was challenged that I enacted the transfer but unpromted, within an hour or so of my seeing the intial (now, we see, false) victory claim. When I recalled my earlier judgment when flatluigi attempted to declare victory by giving himself 1337 points, I realized that I had not in fact won during the original transfer.

Although ssg makes a persuasive case, it is in the end not persuasive enough:

1. The desperate, nitpicky legalism of the anti-SCVF faction is countered here by a claim that we must now read "total number of points required to win" in the broadest possible way. 300 is not 301, nor is it 302, nor is it 458. All of these are a "total number of points," but only one is 300, the total number of points required to win. The rule gives us a specific number, we should abide by it.

2. In cases of ambiguity, rule 313 instructs us to look to game custom and the spirit of the game, both of which flow in the SCVF's direction: game custom has already established that this rule is meant to be read exactly, while the spirit of the game rewards the exploitation of unexpected paradox and loopholes.

This last point is the key point: "...when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards." Try to step outside the win-or-lose paradigm here and ask how a fair and objective party would judge this question GIVEN that we'd already established, earlier in the game, that one required exactly 200 points to win. The language of the rule did not change substantively, so on balance the reading should go to precedent, which flows to SCVF.

3. Note also that when we chose to amend the points required to win, we did so in the shadow of the earlier ruling and chose to keep the same language anyway, suggesting that it was the will of the players to keep the exact number requirement.

What ssg decries as opportunism, incidentally, is actually my own conflicted efforts to be fair in a particularly difficult judging situation. It's true I didn't expect to win this way, but then I never expected the points transfer rule to be used by another player to throw the game to me or anyone else -- the reason for the 51-point threshold was to prevent a back-door sock-puppet exploit, not for this.

The idea that this would actually work only even occurred to us after I shut down 1's victory. I still maintain "51 or fewer" really can't also ban "52 or more," even if we got overexcited in our initial enthusiasm for the exploit and declared ourselves the winners too soon.

If I were being opportunistic, I'd certainly never have wavered, and I'd just as certainly have shut this whole thing down already. Instead, I've been ruling against SCVF interests, and I practically begged jay yesterday to post this poll.

But now I'm whistling past the graveyard. I won't blame any player for voting to prevent a loss, regardless of the merits of the vote itself.

Although ssg makes a persuasive case, it is in the end not persuasive enough:

I wasn't trying to persuade you, gerryblog.

2... while the spirit of the game rewards the exploitation of unexpected paradox and loopholes.

I would counter that the spirit of the game is not to repeatedly declare victory on whatever pretense one can find. The SCVF has made three victory claims so far during this turn. Is the plan to continue until everyone gets bored and leaves?

3. Note also that when we chose to amend the points required to win, we did so in the shadow of the earlier ruling and chose to keep the same language anyway, suggesting that it was the will of the players to keep the exact number requirement.

You wrote "Currency", so you should be well aware that it uses different language

208. The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

Currency: The total number of points required to win the game will be 300.

Finally, I don't think that this precedent is the be all and end all that you make it out to be. We have the power to overrule judgements and we should do so when we believe those judgements are wrong. We may not have done so before, when the ruling was on different wording, and when the game was quickly becoming ridiculous, but that doesn't prevent us from doing it now.

I'll also note that your prior judgement argued that the game does not end when someone wins ("It also does not state in the rules that the game ends when the victory condition has been met."), yet the SCVF has been quite vocal in declaring the game over following claimed victories. I think that your argument about precedent here has little to do with logic and much to do with convenience.

Is the plan to continue until everyone gets bored and leaves?

It's worked for me. The only thought I have left is if I can delete my account rather than leave it here hanging.

shelleycat, you know you can vote to overrule, don't you? It's that button at the top of this thread.

If the victory condition is having any number of points greater than 300, then the transfer of points that left gerryblog with 458 points was illegal and gerryblog has not won.

This seems to be editorializing rather than a statement of fact? I agree that his judgment was unorthodox, but I am voting to uphold the win regardless. I've explained my opinion on the status of our victory elsewhere, and at length.

and I practically begged jay yesterday to post this poll

Indeed. It seems a little odd, gerryblog. If people vote here based on partisan self-interest, we will indeed be back to a state of play, in a game that apparently is impossible to win - not with 458 points, not with 300 points. WTF? Please stop hurting MeFiNo, gerryblog.

#

This seems to be editorializing rather than a statement of fact?

No, that's the application of logic. If the victory condition is having any number of points greater than 299, then 458 is exactly zero points from the victory condition, and the transfer was illegal. As a matter of fact, logic is the basis of my vote here, not partisan self-interest. I believe partisanship in this game has been handled quite ably by your crew, AAA.

shelleycat: why not vote to overrule? Even gerryblog seems to want the game to continue, though I think he is afraid that his pals won't think he is cool anymore if he says it any less obliquely.

I find it's best not to try and moderate one's own posts. Just make your post, sit back, and see where the conversation goes.

Even gerryblog seems to want the game to continue, though I think he is afraid that his pals won't think he is cool anymore if he says it any less obliquely.

Would this game really be better if judges change their interpretation of the rules because other players threw tantrums? Is that what you mean in the other thread by "a little more legal engineering and a little less social engineering"? It seems to me that in the Unfortunate Episode of the SCVF the social engineering has largely flowed from your camp, though, again to your credit, not from you. The points transfer thing *was* legal engineering.

There's a very simple, legal way to undo this mess, and it's getting three more players to vote to overrule. If that can't be done, then the SCVF win stands, whether or not that's the optimum outcome. Personally, I think the optimum outcome would have been for an energized and outraged populace to have thrown legal challenges at the SCVF until one stuck, but that didn't happen, mostly people seem instead to have gotten disproportionately mad or else just gone away.

people seem instead to have gotten disproportionately mad or else just gone away

A condition commonly referred to as "being a sore loser."

This poll has now been open for two days, and the vote is 3-2 against overruling. For better or for worse, I think that's that.

Indeed, it is over.

mostly people seem instead to have gotten disproportionately mad or else just gone away.

Most of the players did indeed just go away. I'd like to avoid that in future games. I think we can learn some lessons from what happened here to help us not have that occur.

Don't win?

#

I think aside from shelleycat, there were others whose participation was pretty tenuous at the end. Perhaps some were glad to see it over and happy to be able to leave - if there was really such anger and disgust at our unjust victory I think you'd have seen more votes and comments to that effect, ssg.

#