MeFiNo | The MetaFilter Nomic Game

The text, in full, again:

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

Hooray for this excellent proposal, yes, YES

#

Wow, we might get two in a row.

yeah because going too fast is the problem.

jeblis: yeah because going too fast is the problem.

The proper time to present that criticism was during the discussion of 306. You know, the one that lasted a whole week. The one you didn't contribute to at all. Yeah, that discussion.

Hi, jeblis,

The discussion volkspider is referring to is Thinking Ahead to 306.

With this, I hope that by taking time to discuss pending potential items for vote, everyone can get on the same page come vote time. The discussion period I suggest can (and ideally will) overlap with whatever current proposal is in voting stage. In other words, it will be time DURING a vote to talk about future proposals.

I can just vote no to express my criticism...

Not only did we discuss it but the wording was changed (and I think improved) during that discussion period. Which shows that it works.

And yeah, going too fast has kind of been a problem, at least for the many players we've dropped along the way. I find the constant whining by those who want things to happen now now now! to be a bit tedious to be honest and am really happy to see some more discussion and inclusion going on in the process. Slow isn't the issue, having nothing happening is. This is aimed at promoting the latter rather than forcing the former.

I have no problem with a discussion period, but we're a few weeks in and we're on the 6th vote. Not exactly speedy. In fact what has most likely caused people to lose interest is the constant discussion without any voting.

Sorry I just don't see a reason to vote yes on this. If a proposer wants to put forth their idea w/o discussion, that's up to them. Yes it's more likely to pass if they get input, but that's a chance they can take.

If a proposer wants to put forth their idea w/o discussion, that's up to them. Yes it's more likely to pass if they get input, but that's a chance they can take.

This is true, but I don't think we should view rule change proposals as something that benefits only the proposer. We know the rules are far less than ideal for our purposes and that we need some changes to make the game more playable. I don't care who proposes those changes; I only care that those changes get passed. When players throw up a proposal without any discussion at all, it is pretty unlikely that the proposal will pass. From my perspective, that's just another wasted turn for everyone, not just for the proposer. With a discussion period, I think there is a better chance that we actually pass some rule changes and make the game more playable.

In any case, given that the discussion period is short and that we can encourage the next player to propose his rule during the previous turn, I don't think this is going to slow down the game significantly. We are averaging about 5 days per turn so I'd say a potential 12 more hours (if for whatever reason the player won't propose their rule during the previous turn) is not a big deal if it helps to adopt some new rules.

There's 13 votes so far, meaning we're missing five:

jeblis
offby1
turaho
vernondalhart
xorry

A number of these people are around fairly regularly -- jeblis, offby1, and vernondalhart are Spork players, turaho and xorry I haven't seen around much lately.

If any of these people are planning on voting no, I'd ask that they do so just to clarify the situation so we know where we stand.

If any of these people are planning on voting yes, I'd likewise ask that they do so.

Once this vote has been up for 48 hours, I think it's time to invoke judgment (if it's still unanimous) and ask that the question be called...

I am voting no because I think this proposal is unnecessary and that this ridiculous voting system should be changed first. I don't see why you should get mad points just so we can pass something that doesn't really do anything I'm too excited about.

SORRY GUYS~!

Well, given that, I'm invoking judgment.

I was waiting to see if anyone had a compelling argument to vote yes.

Also, why does gerryblog hate me and exclude me from his list? Absolutely outrageous.

1: Well, the official reason is that you were a suspended player for having missed a previous vote. But the secret reason is that I *do* hate you, and always have...

Okay, if I'm following the Invocation on 306 thread correctly, I should calculate my points. This will end my turn.

(309-291) * (fraction of favorable votes over total number of players) = my score rounded
15 * 13/19 = 10

Thanks, all. I appreciate the participation and feedback.

If (gawd forbid) a judgment is invoked on the next turn and I don't respond in a timely fashion -- an admin can send a mail or anyone on MetaFilter can MeMail me. School's winding up for the semester, I graduate in a few weeks, and things are getting hectic.

Argh...typo. That's 306-291

bonobo: I don't think you've calculated your points correctly.

According to rule 202:

players subtract 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer.

To me, that means you should multiply (306-291) by (favourable votes)/(total votes), so that would be 15 * 13/15 = 13, and then subtract 10 points for a failed proposal (rule 206) = 3 points.

(Please ignore the wonky formatting)

Ah--didn't know if I was calculating "ayes" vs. total votes or total of people in the players list. I totally missed the 10 pts. rule for (*sniff*) failure--my bad. Thanks for the clarification, ssg.