MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

Why did someone need to invoke judgment? If no one had said anything, we could have just moved to 305 by acclimation, rather than by the same judgment-then-majority-vote process we've done three other times already. Why delay the game further with a judgment and then yet another vote, when it's to all our benefit to keep things moving?

My previous ruling has already cleared this matter up, and a game tradition has developed that all future judges should duly note in their own judgments.

1. Someone who does not vote is not a player; the player list should be updated to reflect the current pool of players each turn.

"Can we consider motty and wendell, the two players yet to vote, to have abstained?"

Please see the above ruling. at least for the moment, motty and wendell are not players because theyt are not playing / participating. This is of no consequence; as soon as they choose to participate they will regain their status as players.

2. Although technically a vote is called for, our game's long tradition of fair and honest judging means that we can move to the next turn without a vote. The only time a vote regarding judgment shall be required is if a player chooses to overrule a judgment - such a vote, as per our laws, would require unanimity.

304 has indeed ended, at the moment anomie calculated points.on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 15:47.

We are now into turn 305 discussion.

So it is written, so it shall be done.

#

AAA: 304 has indeed ended, at the moment anomie calculated points.

That could be a dangerous precedent. Someone might open voting on their proposal, let a single yes vote sneak in, then close voting and end their turn by calculating their score. Then they'd be the judge.

Anyway, I vote/consent to move on.

Since Aaron judged on this it's part of turn 304 - but it was invoked separately so is a new judgement and needs to be treated differently from the last one. So we have to do the majority thing again until we're onto turn 305. So the vote for 305 which has already been opened is premature and needs to be closed until we're done here.

I vote yes to moving on, but still expect a proper majority etc before we actually do so.

Actually reading this I'm not sure if ssg is invoking judgement or not. So maybe we still only have one. But that one still needs a majority and I don't see it.

Not that we have any kind of decent player list telling us what number we need a majority of. The only thing this game seems good at so far is throwing out players.

Not that we have any kind of decent player list telling us what number we need a majority of.
We seem to have been loosely following this procedure. That's what I was going for, just writing down what's already going on by convention. If that's the case, we need a majority of the player list, which is up-to-date following the 304 vote.

It seems that none of you are properly reading my judgment. Please re-read my most recent decision regarding the need for a vote.

So it is written, so it shall be done.

#

AAA, I don't think you can pass judgment on issues that haven't been presented to you. (ssg did not ask if majority consent was needed to move on.)

Yes, I was invoking judgement. Looking at this now, I see there is no way to tell that it was posted as a judgement invocation.

I think AAA judgement is, as volkspider writes, a dangerous precedent (which is why I invoked judgement in the first place). If we let the player whose turn it is unilaterally declare their turn over (as anomie has done) and we define players nebulously as those who participate, then it would be possible for someone to open a vote, vote on it themselves and then immediately declare the vote over. Everyone else would be a non-player at that point.

In any case, I hope we can adopt a rule to deal with this issue in a reasonable way soon. Chuck? ctmf?