MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

I say yes, and if that's what AAA rules, I already consent to move on (whether or not that's needed).

I expect AAA will rule that way. He's said as much, and the question is narrow enough that all he has to say is "yes." I also consent in advance to move on, though as I say in another thread I think AAA's interpretation is actually right that no explicit vote is needed, just "consent of the majority" is needed -- which can be measured in any number of ways, from "the absence of objections" to "the absence of a majority of players objecting." We added the vote rule, it's not actually written in the Nomic rules that way.

Yeah, the possible problem is, in a face to face game you can say something like "any objections?" and if nobody speaks up, you can reasonably believe that there are no objections. Unless someone was in the bathroom, and then you would wait (or shout through the door). On the wiki, we have no reasonable belief that anyone even saw the question unless they say something one way or another. It's another situation that would get us into a "reasonable time to act, default action if you didn't" argument.

That's why we've been posting a vote. There's no rule that says to, but it's the best way to get positive assurance that people do, in fact, want that.

AAA can't rule unless someone disagrees with you. I obviously can't disagree, since I already posted the same opinion in the other thread.

New Judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree - Rule 212

Oh, ctmf, I finally see what you've been on about all this time. If I'd clued in sooner, I would have "disagreed" so we could have this settled. Can someone formally disagree with me so the question can be officially decided? (ctmf, I think for the purposes of this you can formally claim to disagree, can't you? I'm half-tempted to disagree with myself now. Is this the right room for an argument?)

Also from Rule 212: "Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player." Two players aren't required to hold differing opinions in order to invoke judgment. A single player can do it alone.

I agree with Chuck. Any player may refer any matter to the judge. There is no need for a second player to disagree with them. gerryblog has insisted, per 212, AAA must judge the matter, and then we can consent to move on.

That works too. Light the AAA-Signal back up.

Any player may "create disagreement" without requiring a second. However, simply restating what everyone else thinks is not creating disagreement. gerryblog would have to assert the opposite - that the vote is not over.

If I assert that "green is the best color," and invoke judgement, and nobody disagrees with me, the judge can not rule "no" on the question. It simply becomes the case that green is the best color. (However, it may be the case that the judge, as a player himself, disagrees, in which case he could judge the question and rule no.)

Ok, for formality's sake:
I disagree. The vote is not over until 1, notJim, and robo vote.

I have a feeling that AAA is going to make us regret doing this.

ctmf, I hear you, but I think you've got to think more Nomically on this. Rule 212 states "Disagreement for the purposes of this rule may be created by the insistence of any player." So disagreement doesn't entail the common language usage of disagreement, it only entails "the insistence of any player." Worrying about this too much splits hairs pretty finely, but I think I've been convinced that judgment can just be invoked by any player asking for it, without that player first having to make sure that someone out there disagrees with them first...

I have a feeling that AAA is going to make us regret doing this.

Well, maybe, but new judges may, however, settle only those questions on which the players currently disagree and that affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked. The only question on which we disagree is "Has 305 passed?", so there's not much space within which an activist judge can run amuck.

Basically, anything he declares beyond "yes" or "no" is moot, right?

That's one interpretation. The other is that it stands unless we overrule it.

gerryblog is disagreeing, but with rule 105 not with another player. It doesn't say who the disagreement has to be with and I always read it as being with the rules rather than each other.

Rule 105 says (arguably) that the vote is not over as all eligible players haven't voted, so AAA will make an interpretation on what makes an eligible player. He can only rule on things which are not clear, for example he can't rule that players are eligible but don't have to vote, that's against the rules and not allowed under rule 212. Basically the judgement means we end up following the now-clarified rule, which is pretty ironic since AAA seems to be going all out to prevent us from doing that.

And as I already mentioned AAA himself invoked judgement during this turn so we need a majority consent to move on regardless of this new invocation. If anything this makes it clearer. The rule says
When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players.
Consent is an active process, you can't assume I consent unless you ask me and I can't give it by sitting over there and not playing the game. Having an informal vote is the best way to do this.

We already seem to have problems with players not reading everything that's going on, removing the requirement for them to see judgements (which are,after all, pretty important) is only going to make this worse. The attrition in players is also a problem and we should maybe consider that continually driving them away doesn't really make a successful or even fun game. We should be encouraging wide participation not trying to remove it.

My judgment is as follows. All text of this message shall be considered as a part of my legally binding judgment.

As established in our most recent judgment, the judge has the right to use his powers of logic and reason to define the scope of the question as he sees fit.

There are three related issues here: is 305 over? do we need to vote? what becomes of non-voters on 305?

The turn is not over until the player has calculated his points, something backseatpilot has done. However, an invocation was put forward prior to that point.

Gerryblog is quite right in his argument regarding the need for a vote. As we have seen now in a large number of consistent judicial rulings, a formal vote is not necessary to "consent to move on".

Why is this relevant? Because the question has been posed "Is the turn over?". To say "yes, the turn is over" would mean that it is time for 306, not time for a vote to see if we are now allowed to move to turn 306.

Finally, at the moment bsp has calculated points, notwithstanding this invocation which holds up play procedure, my term on the bench is complete. Any invocations past that point will be judged by my honourable successor, backseatpilot, because it will be turn 306.

Any vote taken regarding the turn status will be an illegal vote, and I urge those with respect for the bench to ignore such a vote and not participate. I urge next guy to ignore any vote, and begin his turn immediately upon backseatpilot claiming points and declaring his turn complete. i.e., right now.

As per our long game custom, upheld by extensive judgments, any non-participants should be removed from the player list at the point bsp claims the vote is over and takes points. The court applauds ctmf for taking this action without further coaxing and goading form the bench, and trusts that the site admins will from now on perform this court-appointed task without the need for further instruction and guidance.

So it is written, so it shall be done.

#

Here, here. I've edited "Status" and "MeFiNo Rules" accordingly. I can't access the status box in the corner, but AAA, I think you can.

Neither can I, gerryblog - I only hope the site admins will, as per recent rulings, act quickly and obediently to carry out the will of the court.

#