MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

I like this.

That's perfect. You may get some argument about people wanting 24 or 48 hours, but I don't think anyone can vote against a no less than clause.

You might also add "... no less than twelve hours following the turn beginning before voting opens. I'd still vote for it if you didn't, though.

This might also be a good place to tack on the standard voting format - maybe another sentence that says the vote thread will have as it's first comment, the verbatim text of the proposal to be voted on.

I like it, and I'll be voting yes. If I see that anyone has voted no after I vote yes, I will then change mine to no for scoring purposes.

#

I'd heartily support this. ctmf, I like the spirit of your suggestion but I think the wording is slightly muddy (it's possible to construe it as "following the turn that began..."). Also, I think it's slightly superfluous since people are capable of discussing the new proposal while the old one is still being voted on. In fact, I think as long as we're playing this game linearly our best bet to keep things moving swiftly would be to overlap discussion of future proposals and current proposal voting as much as possible, BOCTAOE.

Also, as long as unanimity is necessary, I think it'd be wise to keep the proposals simple if we want them to pass. Clarification and additions can be made later.

(Let me throw in a few more "alsos" and "I thinks." Sheesh.)

Simple probably is better. There's not much about the original text to argue about. Shake out the rug, as it were, of anything that might pop up after voting begins and everyone starts saying, "Oh, man, I would have voted if it said this..."

I think the part about voting text in the voting thread would be non-controversial also, but maybe you're right that simpler is better.

...argue about so I made something up.
Lost some text, there.

I like this idea. I like having a bit of discussion and clarity about what we're doing. I'm one who would push for 24 hours though, 12 can quite easily happen while I'm sleeping and I like being able to participate in the discussion phase before the vote is set. Given the current participation levels there is a good argument that at least 48 is necessary to get everyone involved (and I will no longer agree to a voting period less than that), but 24 seems to get most of the the active members at least.

I'm not sure if I'd vote yes or no with it currently set at 12. Possibly no but also possibly not to the point that I'm the only one doing so.

You could consider throwing something in there about when voting officially starts. There seemed to be some confusion for 303 and I like the judgement that Aaron gave on that aspect. But the main thing it would relate to in your proposal is not being able to change the wording once voting has started, and I'd think it's pretty obvious to the proposer when they made the move from discussion to voting given that they have to actually post a new thread for it to happen. So this issue probably doesn't need to be addressed in this rule.

I'm all for discussing one thread while voting on the previous, as long as we don't overlap voting. Giving people more to do is good for those that vote fast and even my scattered brain can think about two issues at once :D

shelleycat: I'm not sure if I'd vote yes or no with it currently set at 12.

Why would you vote no? Isn't a 12-hour minimum better than nothing (as was the case with 304)? As an aside, I'd be happier with 24 too, except in a case where the increase would cost 305 a "yes" vote.

Thanks for the feedback, all. I will ponder the wording suggestions. I just realized that this proposal would be numbered 306, not 305, by my turn. Unless, of course, backseatpilot uses it. ;)

It will likely be another 12 hours before I bother the board again today. Have a good day/night.

I'd vote for this. I'm not sure it's the highest priority right now, but it's an improvement all the same.

Can we stop with the scoring stuff and strategic voting for now? Points aren't actually going to make a difference to anything. They're basically for decoration, and a bunch of Yeses changing to Nos because of a single No vote doesn't do anyone any good.

I'm not even convinced people should be allowed to change their vote. Maybe that's an artifact of Drupal, but the rules don't really speak on it, and 207 arguably prohibits it.

I think the strategic voting is a bit silly given that players have been declaring their turn closed and working out points whenever they feel like it, so the points are all messed up anyway. But I also figured that the points aren't terribly important given how messy this has been so far.

Maybe an admin could change the title to say 306 so we know where we're at.

Assuming the admins know where we're at.

Isn't a 12-hour minimum better than nothing (as was the case with 304)?

This is a good point actually and I think the main reasoning behind the rule proposal. It would be nice if we start getting timings overlap. So like one vote is open 48 hours, meanwhile the next one is being discussed for half of that (giving 24) and then the next vote opens fairly quickly afterwards. Judgements would mess it up but we would probably have less of them once we have some kind of limit.

Hmm. That first sentence I wrote should be in a different paragraph from the rest. They were somewhat unrelated thoughts anyway.

When I logged in last night and saw that voting began on 305, I wondered if my tentative 306 could use re-wording into something that excludes simple switches of rules from immutable to mutable and vice-versa.

After logging in this morning and seeing 305's voting suspended, I now wonder if proto-306 _shouldn't_ exclude those simple switches. If nothing else, the 12-hour minimum discussion could be a (temporary?) check on false starts. Another reason would be so that participants can point out any potentially frustrating or destructive switches and still give the proposing player a chance to rework the rule-change without feeling his/her turn was a "waste."

I think it's worth including mutable/immutable switches --- we would have some time to discuss why it should be changed, and change a few minds along the way.

I'd prefer a 24 hour minimum, but I'm not going to vote it down on that basis, I think if there is something to discuss it will go over in any case. We might have to consider someone trying to prematurely end discussion -- I guess we could invoke judgment and then voting would be suspended, but its an edge case.

I'll vote for this proposal, though I think it limits us to 12 hours of discussion after the end of the previous turn, which is less than ideal (I don't think we can have a proposed rule-change prior to the start of the turn per 202). bonobo, would you consider adding something to specifically allow the twelve hour period to start before the start of the turn? Something like "The text of every rule change must be open to discussion for 12 hours prior to the start of voting..."

ssg: I think it limits us to 12 hours of discussion after the end of the previous turn

Can you explain that interpretation a little more? I'm having trouble seeing how that could be the case with the "no less than" wording.

Sorry, what I wrote makes no sense. I meant to say that the current wording requires that the proposal be open for discussion for 12 hours following the end of the previous turn. My suggestion is that, since we seem to take a long time to vote, we could speed up the game by allowing the discussion period for the next proposal to take place during the voting period for the previous proposal.

I don't think you need to include or exclude any specific type of rule change. We don't need to do everything in a tearing hurry. Really simple stuff can be proposed during the previous vote and just be opened right on the dot of their turn starting if the proposer wants to get things going. And once you add ifs and buts it gets too complicated I think, a nice simple rule like your orginal is more likely to be passed.

I also agree that if there is anything to discuss then the time is likely to go over 12 hours, particularly if the proposer is actually interested in having that discussion. If they're not and are really invested in their original wording then a longer discussion won't really change anything (not that I have an issue with this, it's up to each proposer how much they want to budge). So I'll definitely vote yes.

I meant to say that the current wording requires that the proposal be open for discussion for 12 hours following the end of the previous turn.

I don't think the wording in the original post up there says this at all, just that the post has to be discussed in the forum for 12 hours before voting starts. There's no reason why voting can't start as soon as the turn starts assuming the discussion has taken place.

shelleycat -- I think I see where ssg is coming from now. (ssg, correct me if this is inaccurate.) Rule 202 says "One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on." So even if we overlap the initial proposal discussion with the prior turn's voting, the proposer would have to re-propose at the official beginning of his/her turn (post-score calculation; giving us the extra 12 hour wait that might, at that point, be unnecessary). But even with that flaw, I'd vote for this. 12 hrs. isn't that long and 202 can be amended; a mandatory discussion period is worth the occasional slight inconvenience.

I agree with you, volkspider. 202 does imply that. To overlap the discussion part, we'd have to explicitly allow that with a rule that claims precedence per rule 211.

On the other hand, if we go with this method of inserting a time limit, then rule 111 still says "reasonable time". If this rule's 12 hours is satisfied, maybe zero is a reasonable time in that case. Therefore, a simple restatement of the proposal and opening voting is proposing and having it voted on, all in one go.

If the previous rule's pass or fail status has any bearing on the proposal in question, though, maybe zero would not be a reasonable time for discussion once the new information was available.

I can see how you can read it that way. But I still think that discussing what you might propose and putting forward a new rule proposal for discussion are two different things, so rule 202 doesn't necessarily need to interfere with this discussion. After all this wording allows us to discuss something for 12 hours then have the proposer put something entirely different up for voting (wording changes are allowed up until voting starts).

Maybe it needs to say something more like every potential rule change shall be blah blah for no less than 12 hours prior to it being officially proposed and voting opened. Someone else may be able to come up with less awkward wording but you can see where I'm going with this?

If the previous rule's pass or fail status has any bearing on the proposal in question, though, maybe zero would not be a reasonable time for discussion once the new information was available.

Ooo, this is a really good point actually. Like what if I want to propose a rule to modify the rule that was just passed?

putting forward a new rule proposal for discussion are two different things

Voting! That should say putting forward a new rule proposal for voting. Sorry! I do proof read, I just suck at it.

shelleycat: this wording allows us to discuss something for 12 hours then have the proposer put something entirely different up for voting

Ah, I see. Actually, I'm not sure that we need to (or could, with a single rule-change) guard against that. 111 says the proposer "decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on." That immutable rule gives the proposer the freedom to disregard the results of any discussion and open voting on whatever wording they choose. (And I don't think that's a dangerous possibility given that: (a) the other players would surely notice the discrepancy and (b) most proposers know it behooves them to open voting on the version most people like.)

We're more likely to be successful if we try fix these problems one at a time. 306, as written, would fix the "lack of discussion" problem; the "hey, that's not the wording we discussed!" problem, if it needs fixing, should be addressed in another proposal. IMHO.

Yes, volkspider has stated my objection more clearly than I: by rule 202, I don't think that there can be a "proposed rule change" until the start of a turn. I think shelleycat's change to "potential rule change" solves the problem.

ctmf: If the previous rule's pass or fail status has any bearing on the proposal in question, though, maybe zero would not be a reasonable time for discussion once the new information was available.

If we do have a situation where the previous vote has some effect on the next proposal and someone feels that a reasonable time for debate was not given, s/he can invoke judgement on the reasonable time part of rule 111. In the end, the rule proposer can ignore all the discussion, so forcing a discussion isn't going to get us anywhere with an obstinate player.

I'm in favor of a 24 hour or higher period but would vote for this as-is.

I don't actually think a bait and switch on rule wording is a problem on it's own. The proposer has got to know that someone is likely to vote no because they're pissed off at being played and it's up to them to take that risk or not. And there needs to be a mechanism to allow rules to evolve during discussion otherwise there's no point doing it.

But I think it shows how the actual rule proposal as outlined in rule 202 is more a more concrete, specific action than putting up ideas of rules to be discussed (as outlined in this proposal) so careful wording of the new rule should still be able to keep the two events separate.

re: 306

Given that we got 105 mutable, I think we should capitalize on this and establish an official time limit for voting...

Let's vote.

#

How does the following look, folks?

306. Every potential rule-change shall be posted in its own forum discussion thread for no less than twelve hours before voting opens.

Looks good to me. I'd vote for it.

I'd vote for it, but I think it should be a bit more ambitious. In particular I think we should establish an explicit voting time limit, now that the mutability of 105 allows it. I'd also like to pass majority rules sooner than later, but that can probably wait a turn or two....

I see Chuck's working on my suggestions for #307, so maybe it's not so pressing. I say throw up 306 as is....

I'm trying to keep it simple and quick, but I can't see the harm in a time limit for voting wedged in here...

\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_

306. Every potential rule-change shall be posted in its own forum discussion thread for no less than twelve hours before voting opens.

Voting shall close forty-eight hours from the time voting on the proposal opens.

\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_

Let me know if the wording seems awkward (I'm hella-tired right now) or if the 48-hour vote doesn't suit.

Okay, after catching up with Chuck's #307 discussion, let's scratch the vote timer in my potential proposal. ¿Sí?

At the risk of spamming my own thread, I just wanted to let you all know that I posted the proposal. GO VOTE.