Proposal: Amend rule 203 to read the following:
"A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives favorable votes from at least a simple majority of the eligible players.
A player is eligible if they are listed in the list of players as active. Any non-player can be placed on that list and therefore become an eligible player by voting, effective at the time of their first or subsequent votes. Anyone who creates an account for MeFiNo after the adoption of this rule is a non-player and can only become a player if they provide proof that are a member of Metafilter."
Sorry for the delay; I was having a bit of a hard time deciding what to do.
"if ... there is at least a simple majority vote" is slightly ambiguous. I think this would be a clearer wording of the first sentence: "A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives favorable votes from more than half of the eligible voters."
Also, I think there's a big problem with sentence two -- "The required percent ... can be changed by ... the current judge" could be interpreted to mean that an invocation isn't necessary for the judge to exercise that power.
I'm not sure why that power should be given to a judge anyway. What was your reasoning there? And why would a proposer ever want to make their proposal harder to adopt?
All that aside, I'm concerned about switching to simple majority within the first two circuits (it's one of the few areas where I and my esteemed colleague, ctmf, disagree). I'd be more comfortable with a higher minimum -- I think 70% would be ideal, but even 60% would be acceptable to me. I'm not committing to a position on the simple majority issue right now, but I wanted to get that out there.
I'm flexible on the exact percentage also, for values that allow for a couple of dissenters without shooting down the vote.
Allowing the required margin to change is an interesting concept, but I agree that the proposer is unlikely to want to change that. A judge would have no basis to change it. How would it ever be other than simple majority?
Here's how, and the reason I don't like it: Someone against the proposal refers to the judge, and the judge (also against the proposal) sets the margin back to unanimous, effectively killing the proposal.
Yeah, I also agree that letting the judge change the margin is a bad idea. What's the rationale for that?
I've changed it from the suggestions.
As the change implies, the reason I gave the judge the power is so he or she has the ability to change it if need be. As it stood before the alterations, it could be argued that the judge couldn't.
The reasons behind my proposal are first to get us into a position where less than unanimous votes are needed and second to introduce some variety into the game in a way that isn't broken but could be expanded on. Part of the reason I joined the nomic is to see people trying to abuse and misuse the rules.
"At least half" includes "exactly half," which is less than a simple majority, so your first sentence contradicts your last. "Needed for majority" should be "needed for adoption," I think. Also, "invocation" is spelled with a c.
But I'd still vote against this due to allowing a judge to change the fraction needed.
Yeah, I also agree that letting the judge change the margin is a bad idea. What's the rationale for that?
Anything giving additional powers to judges is excellent. If you keep that clause in, this will have my yes vote (which counts as three normal people votes).
Another alteration.
If the proposer of the rule has opted to change the percentage needed, the judge may not change it again.
I forsee every proposer preempitvely increasing the percentage to 50.001%.
Mm, you're right.
A question: Can anyone think of a situation where judgement might need to be called on the majority? I was thinking of a case in which the game might stall because the proposer set the majority too high, but in retrospect it seems counterintuitive for them to do so.
flatluigi: Can anyone think of a situation where judgement might need to be called on the majority?
How do you mean? Like, a judgment on the definition of majority? Or a judgment to alter the percentage of favorable votes needed for adoption?
Re: game stalling: How would the act of a proposer setting the percentage too high stall the game? It'd make the proposal more likely to fail, but a failed proposal wouldn't delay us anymore than a successfully adopted one would.
The second, for the first.
For the second, you're right. Forgive me, I'm not all that healthy recently from a combination of APs, sleep deprivation, a bad cold, Okami, and Mario Kart. I'll edit the first post again.
Seems pretty straightforward, but I still don't understand why you would want to deliberately increase the majority requirement on your own rule proposal. Don't you want to get your own rules passed?
Oh, also - can someone update the status block on the main page?
To be perfectly frank, what I'd love to see in a nomic is a lot of trying to exploit the rules through loopholes and such. To get to that point, we need complexity. This is a fairly simple way to add complexity in a way that's currently harmless, but in the future might be part of a vast strategy to win.
What if the condition for passage could be altered by a majority vote, rather than by an individual player? This would allow for a lot of recursive interestingness, and also allow us to actually start passing things before 2009.
i think "speedier progress" and "more complexity" are contrary to each other in this game. And, personally, I'm not sure that complexity for complexity's sake is a worthwhile endeavor.
I like the simple majority, or any other non-unanimous ratio. I don't like much changing it on the fly, though I see how a proposer could gain extra points with a popular proposal and a high bar. I especially don't like any expansion of judicial power.
But you STILL haven't addressed what it means to be an eligible player and fixed the problem that made me vote this down last time. So I'm still going to vote no. I simply will NOT vote for any kind of percentage voting while it is possible to arbitrarily decide who is or is not playing at a given time and to either throw out or include people as we see fit.
This is no different than the past two majority vote propositions that got voted down. Proportional voting simply isn't feasible with the rules as they stand and I don't get why people keep suggesting it without addressing the reasons why this is.
To refresh your memories this is what I said before: http://blogshares.com/mefino/node/40#comment845
"I'm not really comfortable with this as it stands because we've seen how little rule 105 means and how quickly people will call to move on. You ask for a two thirds majority but we don't even have a set in stone number of players. What if two people vote yes, one no then everyone else gets kicked out of the game and the vote is passed and the turn ended? Based on previous precedent I totally see it happening and don't trust a judge to fix it, particularly as you must be online as voting is happening right then to successfully invoke judgment during that turn anyway. Once the vote is closed the person who proposed it becomes the next judge so of course they're going to judge that everything went as planned.
A time limit I can live with, then the onus is on the players to participate within the time frame. Straight numbers I no longer trust and saying "just call for judgment" to decide everything totally doesn't fly."
shelley: We have defined players already as people who are on this list as active. http://blogshares.com/mefino/node/21 There is no difference between a player and a non-player, except that non-players are not counted in the percentage for majority. They can vote and become an active player again.
I'll add something to make you happy, though.
shelleycat: As has been pointed out before, between your insistence that you will only vote for a proposal that amends 305 and 1's insistence that he will only vote for a proposal that eliminates the requirement for unanimity, we are stuck.
As a compromise, would you consider voting for a proposal that changes the requirement to unanimity minus one? A small step, rather than a big change all at once. I think most players agree that we need to amend 305, but most isn't enough right now. I don't think the change to unanimity minus one would change much w/r/t/ how long votes would be open and it would eliminate the possibility that one player can veto every proposal.
Of course, it isn't my turn for quite a while, so I can't propose this myself, but it might be worth talking about.
The major basic issues we (still) need to deal with are:
1) What is a player?
2) How long should votes take?
3) How many votes are required to pass something?
We have real disagreement on some of these issues, but it's #3 that's the real killer, as it continues to allow (as ssg) says a single player to torpedo whatever they want whenever they feel like it.
I propose we just keep hammering away at unanimity until we get something. ssg's thinking outside the box proposal for unanimity plus one is a good start.
(unanimity minus one)
And shelleycat, I hear you, but the problem you identify is *worse* right now because the capacity exists for a player to propose something, vote for it, end the vote on the grounds it was unanimous, take their points, and claim it was passed, thereby making themselves the judge. We're lucky that no one has tried this yet. We need to get rid of unanimity -- it is killing this game.
There's two more nuclear scenarios we need to deal with soon:
1) A ban on sock puppets. (See the Spork ban on sock puppets I just proposed for possible language.) Right now one dedicated asshole could commandeer the game through the creation of a bunch of sock puppets account. This could already have happened.
2) Judicial reform. I love judges and I'm confident that in three turns, when I'm the judge, this game will really start to pick up. But after that we really need to fix the judging system so that (again) a single dedicated asshole can't completely take over.
Crap, did I post that as gerryblog? I meant to do it under my main account.
Hi guys, mind if I play? So, like, do I just dive right in and start voting, or what?
My friends call me Abby for short.
Okay, what's this crap with the alternate accounts now? jay is actually gerryblog? Who's this Abron person? Is that AaronAA pulling something lame?
"Lame" is in the eye of the beholder, volkspider. And for the record, I have no idea who this "Abron" person is.*
*boldfaced lie
I'm not gerryblog but thank you for falling for it. Abron is ostensibly Meatbomb, from his mefino profile.
I wouldn't trust this Abron guy, something smells fishy about him but I just can't put my finger on it.
Anyone want to invoke to ban sockpuppets? (And didn't meatbomb already have an account here? I can't locate the member list anymore.) Chuck, what's your position on this?
(Oh, duh, the OG AAA is meatbomb.)
I do not think that it is within the judge's remit, volkspider.
"116. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it."
I didn't see anything in the rules that disallowed sockpuppets. Personally I blame gerryblog for starting this whole mess by giving me the idea upthread.
And furthermore, it would seem to me that my action has started a game tradition and custom of creating and using sock puppets, that chuck is likely to take into account if an invocation is made.
By that reasoning, since there's nothing in the rules prohibiting the banning of sockpuppets, we can do that too. And, like I and others have said before, custom is basically meaningless (a judge only has to "consider" it; and they're free to consider it the way someone "considers" a spider before squashing it with a shoe).
I am 100% with you regarding the banning of sockpuppets, the problem though is determining who they are. I categorically deny that Abron is my sockpuppet, and would like to preemptively point out that there are probably a number of other MeFiNo players here in Lviv that have the same IP address as me.
it's interesting that we have never seen volkspider and ctmf online at the same time. I am not making any accusations, but it does make one wonder, doesn't it?
Also, seems to me that sockpuppets don't give anyone extra votes. 207 says "Each player always has exactly one vote." The accounts here are not players. They frequently coincide with players, but they're not players. (We'll probably need a judge ruling for this of course.)
> the problem though is determining who they are.
True. They're like cylons. We'll probably have to work off circumstantial evidence. Or we could adopt a rule that puts a moratorium on new accounts. IPs are useless for not only the (hard to believe) reason you gave, but also because anyone can access this site via web proxies.
Also, if I were sockpuppeting I'd hide it better than that. I'd be, like, 1 or shelleycat. Not someone I so frequently agree with.
Exactly, volkspider. But if the two of us team up to rally the masses I am sure we can together defeat this scourge.
What really worries me is that this Abron so-called "player" has, by spoofing my user handle, dragged my good name and reputation into the mud.
Yeah, volkspider, what kind of moron would create such an obvious sockpuppet? Who the hell has a name like "Abron"? And what's to stop this psycho from creating a "volkspeeder" or "folkspider" account?
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to make themselves a sock puppet.
volkspider is both 1 and shelleycat?
We have real disagreement on some of these issues, but it's #3 that's the real killer, as it continues to allow (as ssg) says a single player to torpedo whatever they want whenever they feel like it.
True. I predict as soon as we fix that, though, it still might be impossible to get a rule passed. 204 is going to make things interesting.
Hell, the smart move would have been to make a sock puppet that began with D, and then post a proposal. flatluigi hasn't started his turn yet.
Depends on intentions. Me, I was just looking to smear Aaron and cover tracks as to who is actually pulling my strings.
ctmf: I was under the impression that my turn started when the previous turn ended. Am I wrong?
You might be. Might not. It's vague.
3 possible options:
(1) Your turn started when you opened the discussion on the proposal
Not Possible. It was still my turn, but does anything prevent simultaneous turns? Maybe not, but see (2) below.
(2) Your turn started automatically when I calculated my points, since Rule 202 actions were completed.
I don't think that's possible, since rule 212 says you may not begin your turn until everyone consents after a judgment.
(3) Your turn started when the poll of consent reached majority status.
Plausible, but if the player count keeps going up, does that make the required majority change, or is it instantaneously over as soon as majority is hit the first time? Don't know.
(4) Your turn starts only when you say it does, and only if the initial conditions (consent to move on) are completed.
Possible.
My post assumed (4), but I don't really think that. I actually believe (3), but I'm just another player. I'm just saying someone could have made the sock puppet and hijacked your turn, and had an argument that it was legal.
Note that (4) allows a gap between the end of my turn and the beginning of yours where it's not anyone's turn. I don't like that theory much.
Also note that there are 3 kinds of people:
(1) those who proofread their posts before submitting
(2) those who don't.
I divide the world differently, ctmf:
1) those who use the smokescreen of "tradition" and "custom" to legislate from the bench
2) those who judge the issues before them objectively and honestly
When can we expect judgement, your honour?
Before this gets posted after the sock puppet judgement finishes, I'd like some more input on how to arrange and state this proposal.
The intent of this rule is to:
1) Explicitly define what a player is for this and future use
2) Change the rule adoption method from requiring unanimous voting
3) [optional, can be scrapped even though I don't want to] Allow players to raise the majority needed from 1/2 to whatever.
There's a rule that prohibits multiple rule changes in a single proposal, so we should watch for that.
"203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority."
I think we should try something like ssg's proposal: "203. A rule-change is adopted if (a) a supermajority (2/3) of eligible players have voted; (b) no more than 3 players have voted no."
Missing the 'and' between (a) and (b).
True that.
"203. A rule-change is adopted if (a) a supermajority (2/3) of eligible players have voted; and (b) no more than 3 players have voted no."
There's a rule that prohibits multiple rule changes in a single proposal, so we should watch for that.
I realize that. It's stating a rule that's essentially 'you need at least x eligible players to pass your vote,' then clarifying what 'eligible player' means and what 'at least' means.
Gerry, that's a big change from what I have there. Any reason?
(also, your turn is up next, so you can propose that if you really want to.)
Yeah, I think I might. The reason for the change is just the impasse between the forces who will never accept a time limit for voting (either because it's too big or too small) and people like shelleycat who oppose any legislation that doesn't require full participation for fear of bad acting on the part of a judge.
Once we've gotten away from unanimity we can take the hammer to all these people. But we absolutely need to get rid of unanimity first. I've actually got a pretty clear idea for how we can bootstrap majority vote more or less within the rules as currently written, but I want to give the legislative process at least two more tries first.
The turn that I'm the judge, majority rules legislation will pass, if it hasn't happened by then.
Wow, cool. I can't wait to see some decisive judgin' from your end, gerryblog!
So.
LAST CALL FOR ALTERATIONS
flatluigi: I think you should just run with something like:
"A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives favorable votes from a simple majority of the eligible players. The vote cannot be closed until at least half of the eligible players have voted.
A player is eligible if he or she is one of the 16 players listed below:
1 (0 pts)
AAA Aaron A. Aaronson (-2 pts)
backseatpilot (14 pts)
Chuck (2 pts)
ctmf (0 pts)
flatluigi (0 pts)
gerryblog (0 pts)
jay (0 pts)
jeblis (0 pts)
mosessis (0 pts)
shelleycat (0 pts)
ssg (0 pts)
tallus (0 pts)
vernondalhart (0 pts)
volkspider (0 pts)
Any non-player can become an eligible player by voting, effective at the time of his or her vote."
AAA, you're my inspiration.
Remove the points from that list.
What that alteration does is creates a floor of the current 16 players, which should alleviate shellycat's concern about hijacking. More players can be added, but we won't have less than 16 while this rule is in force.
"votes from a simple majority " => "votes from at least a simple majority "
You also say "increased" in the last paragraph but then say it can go down to a majority.
gerryblog: I love that idea. Though I might replace the last sentence with "Any non-player can become an eligible player with the explicit consent of more than half of the current eligible players." I'm iffy on the "eligible player" language (since it gets confusing with 305's verbiage), but it's not a deal-breaker.
But I think that might be a bit radical for flatluigi. If he's sticking with the current proposal at the top of this page here're my notes: I'd still rather see a 60% minimum. Also, "is eligible if he is listed" should be "is eligible if he or she is listed" to stay consistent with the next sentence.
More edits. I cut my increasing idea and snuck in some more definitions.
flatluigi: (Re: new edit) For this tack to work I think the ability to edit the player list needs to be restricted. Also, I don't think this revision would get rid of the current sockpuppets/non-MeFites (107 prohibits retroactive application). Is that your intent?
I'm starting to like this proposal. Problem is, the sock puppets are going to vote against it.
There are only 15 names in your list of 16 players.
What if someone said they wouldn't vote until the sockpuppets were banned and their votes erased? That would affect the completion of the turn and you could rule on it (presumably removing the puppets and invalidating their votes).
Ah, bonobo's gone, the number didn't account for that.
ctmf seems to have solved the sock puppet crisis for at least a turn; see the latest invocation.
Ok, now the sock puppets can't vote.
For this tack to work I think the ability to edit the player list needs to be restricted. I'm one of the admins, and I'm not sure I have the power to lock the page. jay?
Anyone have any issues with the rule as stated? I'd like to post this for voting before I head to bed.
It's stating a rule that's essentially 'you need at least x eligible players to pass your vote,' then clarifying what 'eligible player' means and what 'at least' means.
If somebody would post a rule that did all of that then I would be happy. I would probably even vote for it if I disagreed with the details, because at least it would show that someone is thinking about the real issues here. The current system of players being chucked out when someone gets bored enough to call for judgement is not good and I want it to change.
I don't see unanimity as a problem really. I think some really awful rules have been voted down so far by only one or two players. But once we know what an eligable player is then a decent majority would be acceptable. It's the eligible player part I have an issue with not how big the majority is. (yeah I prefer bigger rather than smaller but there have been plenty of reasonable options put forward)
If we're going to have the player list coded into a rules there also needs to be some built in flexibility (I think everyone agrees with this anyway?). On the one hand we need to be able to remove players so we're not stuck. On the other hand I think there needs to be clear and reasonable rules about what it takes to have someone removed (which a time limit on voting would do as an example) so we all know where we stand. Being removed from the list should never some as a surprise.
Also it should be relatively easy to rejoin (and possibly for new players to join, assuming we want them?). I definitely won't approve of existing players voting someone back in, I hate popularity contests and see nothing good there. Simply posting a thread asserting that they are once again playing might be a good way of doing it. Or possibly keeping it all in one thread opened for the purpose, in the same way that several people have posted about taking hiatuses in the thread that volkspider started. There could also be rules about how many times a player may rejoin to stop anyone flakey who keeps rejoining but doesn't really want to play - although I don't think this has been a problem so far?
flatluigi, put it up, we'll see if it goes. shelleycat is threatening to vote no in the other thread, but even if she does I'd rather just hurry up through your turn and mine so jay can pass simple majority rules during my tenure as an extremely activist judge.
The vote cannot be closed until at least half of the eligible players have voted.
This contradicts rule 305 that says all eligible palyers must vote, as it leaves the door open for all votes to be closed once only half the players have voted. Since the whole point is that I want everyone that is actually playing to be able to vote then no, I won't vote for that.
I also don't like the part about mefi usernames but can't think of any better way to deal with the sockpuppets so it makes sense.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll snip that part.
If someone can figure out a better way of dealing with sockpuppets, there's always amendments.
so jay can pass simple majority rules during my tenure as an extremely activist judge.
How exactly are you going to do this without breaking the rules? I assume that breaking the rules is actually what you're planning? In which case why even bother playing if you care so little about the actual game?
I am making a good faith effort to understand all your points of view and to explain what I am thinking so we can compromise. But I see no point if other players are just going to do whatever they like and screw the actual game or how it's supposed to be played. That's such a shitty attitude.
Also: what was the worry about with people closing the votes early, if we had that provision already?
Taking that sentence out makes the rule consistant and generally make sense. But what happens if someone doesn't vote? Are we stuck waiting for everyone on that list now it's specifically mentioned in a rule?
shelleycat: The game is supposed to be played as a metagame. It's going to be extremely boring if we go with the basic 'pass rules to gain points, first to 200 wins!' We make rules and we try to abuse the existing rules to win.
I think I've actually found a way to do it within the rules. Of course, the rules are extremely lenient on what a judge is allowed to do, and very rigoroous about what it takes to overrule a judge.
I'm confident that when my ruling has been issued during jay's turn people will see and appreciate its wisdom.
Shelley: Note that it says 'a player is eligible if they are on the list as an active player.' By previous rulings and common sense, a player is on the list of active players if they are active players. An invocation can and has previously been able to move them off the list into non-players (lapsed players, if you will).
We can proceed as we have been.
We don't have the provision already. Right now all eligible players must vote, as per rule 305. So far we have judges make rulings on what it means to be eligible and use that as a provision to make non-voting palyers ineligible so that all eligible players have voted, regardless of who actually voted. Your rule tightens this up but thinking about it more what's to stop someone just deleting everyone from that page or editing it however they see fit? This still doesn't work.
Your rule tightens this up but thinking about it more what's to stop someone just deleting everyone from that page or editing it however they see fit? Presumably the judge would rule that such actions were illegitimate.
We can proceed as we have been.
Right, so it does nothing and is pointless. We're still back with the system sucking.
I realise that unanimous isn't a failsafe with things as they are. Any player can get thrown out at any time and thus prevented from voting. But it's still safer to give everyone the chance to have an effect with their vote than moving to a majority rule with things so nebulous.
I'll repeat myself again: we need clear and reasonable rules about what a person has to do to remain an eligible player. Right now we do not have that. Removing even more power from the players that are left is not acceptable until this is the case.
The list is an official page and outside the game.
Shelley. Can you please read the proposal?
"A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives favorable votes from at least a simple majority of the eligible players.
A player is eligible if they are listed in the list of players as active. Any non-player can be placed on that list and therefore become an eligible player by voting, effective at the time of their first or subsequent votes. Anyone who creates an account for MeFiNo is a non-player until they vote and until they provide proof that they have an account on Metafilter."
By creating an account, we became non-players. By voting, we have been placed on the list of active players.
All we need to do is provide proof that we have a metafilter account, and for us right now that's cleared by the "True Players" invocation.
flatluigi, I say go for it.
I did read the proposal. Repeatedly. Did you read what I wrote?
Your proposal doesn't change anything. I want things changed. I don't want to wake up one morning and find I'm no longer allowed to play and that my vote is meaningless.
I also think you should change the last sentence to reflect cmtf's recent judgement because it's good.
I'll make the judgement official, then.
I was under the impression that my proposal was changing quite a few things, especially in terms of keeping players active if they're active, but if you don't feel that way I'd love to hear your suggestions instead of just your feelings. Right now I don't know exactly what you're talking about.
Actually, why not just incorporate the whole judgement? No nebulous referral to the player list, put the actual list in there with the names and the bit about what a player has to do to join.
Hmm, but then players can't be removed if necessary. So we're back to needing clear conditions under which a player remains on the list and is considered active.
It's a hard thing to balance. Right now, and with your rule, there is nothing to keep players on the list at all. But you can't fix the list forever because people do wander away. This is what needs to be addressed and what has not been done effectively so far.
Anyway, I have to go home and then I'm going out drinking, so I'll be back tomorrow morning.
I don't see how the current proposal does anything. Rule 305 says every player is an eligible voter. This means that every player is eligible to vote. It doesn't really matter what this proposal says about eligible players, because by rule 211, the rule with the lower number (305) takes precedence. So all this proposal would do is change to a simple majority, which doesn't seem likely to pass anyways.
I'm not sure I know exactly what I'm talking about either, ever heh. Just that we need to find some balance between keeping people on the list and not stalling the game forever. You are moving in the right direction in trying to give more protection to the players, and I do appreciate that, I just don't know that it goes far enough yet.
Gah! Have to go home! (amso easily distracted!)
I am prepared to vote in a majority of whatever kind as long as there is also something to keep players on the list. We need to be clear at all times what exactly it is we're looking for a majority of and having the list so easily edited by any judge doesn't give us that.
309 can override 305 if it explicitly says so. (also by rule 211)
ssg: That's easily fixed by the same rule by explicitly stating precedence.
shelley: As it is at this moment, every player named in the 'true players' invocation is an active player. This is unchanged by the provision. Taking the second paragraph:
"A player is eligible if they are listed in the list of players as active. Any ineligible player can be placed on that list and therefore become an eligible player by voting, effective at the time of their first or subsequent votes. Anyone who creates an account for MeFiNo from the adoption of this rule is a non-player until they provide proof that are a member of Metafilter and not already playing under a different MeFiNo username."
We are eligible. We cannot become non-players, only ineligible players. We can become eligible again whenever we vote, and if we're active that will be easy. Ineligibility is the sticking point, but tradition and sense has maintained that eligibility is given the benefit of the doubt. I'll see if I can provide a provision for that, also.
Alright, I've established a provision. I'm iffy about stating an exact period of time for the bolded part of the proposal -- 'a reasonably long period of time' -- since exact figures have been a major part of previous proposals being shot down. I think that does the job, though.
> is a non-player until they provide proof that [they] are ... not already playing under a different MeFiNo username.
How would anyone prove that?
If you want the rule to have precedence, then you'd better explicitly state that.
I don't think you need to create the new categories of eligible and ineligible players. We already have two perfectly serviceable categories: players and non-players. If you use those categories, you can cut the first sentence of the second paragraph and then replace "ineligible player" with non-player and so on. You'll probably want to change "is a non-player until..." to "cannot become a player until..." as well.
I don't like the wording about proving that one is not already playing under a different MeFiNo username. How do you prove the negative in this case? Can you reword to remove the need for proof and just say that a player cannot be already playing under a different username?
I also think "from the adoption of this rule" is potentially unclear. Can you use "after"?
I thought about this on the way home and ssg is right. Putting in stuff about eligible players is starting to impinge on 305 and moving more towards the direction I like would put us squarely in the "more than one rule" camp. Trying to do too much at once makes it more likely to get voted down, if nothing else. So if you post it as it was when I last posted I'll vote yes (with ctmfs wording in there about new players). The current change is probably getting too messy.
Then I'll just really really hope that someone else proposed a new rule to give players more protection, probably by adding to rule 305 to be more clear as to what an eligible player actually is. Obviously I like the 48 hour voting window but other limits could be used, like must post somewhere on the site once per week or whatever. I'm sure there are many ideas possible.
I'm not trying to be difficult, really!
I'm not even what this new revision does. Rule 305 is about eligible voters. This proposal is about eligible players. Are these the same thing? Different? The statement of precedence at the end is even more confusing: is this a definition of eligibility as it relates to players, voters, or both?
Again, I think that it would be best to stick with the established categories of players and non-players.
> put us squarely in the "more than one rule" camp
I think it's worth noting that the rules don't actually prohibit those kinds of rule-changes. They only say that we have to allow for debate when such a rule is proposed.
> Trying to do too much at once makes it more likely to get voted down, if nothing else
That's a valid concern. I'm wary of introducing new terms (like "eligible player") when it's not absolutely necessary.
Ah, GMTA, ssg.
I'm trying to explicitly define who can vote. I don't have the history of changes and I don't recall what they were at that point, so this is my best guess. Comments?
flatluigi, I mentioned this in the Invokation [sic] thread, but I'll repeat it here since I think it's a superior method (and should be easy to word): What if we just froze the player list so no new players may join, then added a provision that lets anyone who used to be on the list be re-added with the exception of the two obvious socks? We'd maintain two lists: A player list and a "is now or ever has been a player" list. What do you think?
I think it's a horrible idea. I'd never ever be behind it. *cough*
Anyway, with that in mind we should be able to simplify it to the point of adoptability. It's 1:35 here; this is me signing off for reals. Night.
I'd be against a complete freeze to new players. We're going to have to come up with some way to discourage sock puppet shows, and I don't know what that way is, but that's just dropping the ball. A game where people can leave but not join isn't going to work for very long. Nobody's joined for a while, but then again, this isn't really advertised anywhere. A mention on projects might get a few takers.
I think I mentioned this earlier, but what if we included something that lets us vote in totally new people with simple majority the same way we've done consent polls (i.e. doesn't stall the game)?
Nice one - simple vetting.
Works for me. Especially if the new candidate had to perform a different little task to prove himself or herself worthy to get each person to vote them in. Yay, hazing!
I'm joking. The voting in idea would work.
Okay, here's what I came up with. I tried to keep it as short and loophole-proof as possible. flatluigi, I appreciate your attempts at this -- I didn't realize how F-ing hard it was.
* * *
Two lists, the Player List and the Other List, shall be maintained at all times and altered only in ways prescribed by this rule.
Initially, the Player List shall consist of these individuals: 1, AAA Aaron A. Aaronson, backseatpilot, Chuck, ctmf, flatluigi, gerryblog, jay, jeblis, mosessis, shelleycat, ssg, tallus, vernondalhart, volkspider.
Initially, the Other List shall consist of all the names from the Player List and these individuals: bonobo, cortex, Taksi Putra, Dave, Mister_A, Resrever, motty, wendell, robocop is bleeding, turaho, xorry, ErWenn, aspo, anomie, !jim.
All individuals named in the Player List are players. Individuals not named in the Player List are not players.
Any individual named in the Other List may have their named added to the Player List by openly requesting it. Any individual named in the Player List may have their name removed from the Player List by openly requesting it. An individual's name may also be removed from the Player List by a judge if judgment was invoked by another player (not the acting judge) for that specific, singular purpose AND the individual had not participated in any way within the last seventy-two hours. An individual's name may not be removed from the Other List. Any individual's name may be added to the Other List with the explicit consent of a majority of the players.
* * *
Criticisms and corrections welcome. I'm a little iffy on the third sentence of paragraph five, so improvements on that might be nice.
Yes, it did. There were 17 players prior to bonobo being removed from the list. offby1 is missing from the list, for no reason which I can see.
Sorry, I just saw the revision history for the list of players page where offby1 apparently removed himself from the list. Carry on.
I would be concerned about basing player-hood on a list which can be edited by anyone. While the rest of the proposals makes additional restrictions on how a person becomes a player, there is no further restriction on how a person ceases to be a player. If this rule were in effect, I could make you a non-player simply by editing the player list and removing you from it.
Also, there needs to be something about where in the list new players are added. If we just insert them into the list in alphabetical order, based on a username which they select, that's too easily gamed.
I don't think you want "specific, singular" in there. Otherwise, we couldn't, for example remove to players with one judgement.
ssg: That was my intent -- I was concerned about a judge'n'friend wiping out the whole Player List with one invocation. But that was before I put in the seventy-two hour safeguard (which I admit is an arbitrary number), so you're right; it's overcautious. Strike "specific, singular."
The part about removing players from the players list is unclear to me. It says a player "may" be removed from the list in such-and-such a manner. That doesn't preclude removing players in other ways, which makes the whole thing moot. We probably need "can only" there instead. However, I think it would be best to remove the part about participation in the last 72 hours and replace it with something about voting on an proposal open for voting for 48 or more hours (or whatever number of hours).
Two scenarios come to mind:
1) The proposing player and a complicit judge declare all players who haven't commented in 72 hours non-players, depriving them of a chance to vote. With long discussion periods (like this one) there are bound to be players who don't so anything for more than 72 hours. Technically, they could rejoin immediately, but the vote may have already closed by then.
2) A player is determined to hold up the game for whatever reason and does not vote, but makes sure to leave a comment every 72 hours, thus preventing the judge from removing them.
As to volkspider's suggestion: offby1 should also be on the Other List. Also, there should be some specification as to where people added to the Player List are inserted into the turn order. (And does the Player List define turn order? Or is it just a list of players which does not necessarily have anything to do with turn order?)
A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives favorable votes from at least a simple majority of the eligible players.
flatluigi, I am not sure if you are aware of this, but your proposal would remove my veto over proposed rule changes. That's something I am not at all comfortable with, and if that language remains in I will be forced to vote against.
Chuck: offby1 should also be on the Other List.
You're right. Thanks.
ssg: It says a player "may" be removed from the list in such-and-such a manner. That doesn't preclude removing players in other ways, which makes the whole thing moot.
Except the first sentence says "lists ... shall be ... altered only in ways prescribed by this rule." That precludes any removal method not explicitly laid out in the rest of the text.
ssg: I think it would be best to remove the part about participation in the last 72 hours and replace it with something about voting on an proposal open for voting for 48 or more hours (or whatever number of hours).
I doubt the people that voted down the voting time limit would let that pass since it basically does the same thing, albeit in a sneakier way.
ssg: 1) The proposing player and a complicit judge declare all players who haven't commented in 72 hours non-players, depriving them of a chance to vote.
I don't think that's a big danger. A more active player could hold off on voting or cancel his/her vote to stop that breach. And the odds are slim that all the less active players would have voted the same way on a given issue.
ssg: 2) A player is determined to hold up the game for whatever reason and does not vote, but makes sure to leave a comment every 72 hours, thus preventing the judge from removing them.
That's an extremely good point. Maybe add something about being able to remove a name from either or both lists simultaneously with unanimous explicit consent from all other players? ('Course, that doesn't work if we have two people holding up the game...) I dunno, can you think of a good fix for that?
Chuck: Also, there should be some specification as to where people added to the Player List are inserted into the turn order.
How about if we just add "The order of names on these lists has no bearing on turn order"?
That's fine for making clear that the Player List doesn't define turn order, but it still doesn't answer the question of where new players are placed in the turn order.
Oh, never mind, that's covered in rule 201, at least if we interpret "surname" to mean "user name," as we have been.
Except the first sentence says "lists ... shall be ... altered only in ways prescribed by this rule." That precludes any removal method not explicitly laid out in the rest of the text.
Right, I forgot about that.
I doubt the people that voted down the voting time limit would let that pass since it basically does the same thing, albeit in a sneakier way.
I thought that 1 voted against the proposal because he thought that the unanimity requirement should be changed first. If this proposal includes both changes, it may get his vote. I'm not sure why flatluigi voted against it, but it he unlikely to put a proposal to vote that he won't vote for. offby1 isn't a player anymore. I think AAA's vote was probably just to reduce the final score, though I don't presume to know how he will vote at all.
I voted against because it was failing anyway and I didn't want people to close voting prematurely.
Anyway, though the new version of 309 looks all nice and shiny, I wish it was about the unanimity. However, AAA is apparently completely against taking out unanimity in any way, shape, or form, so that's a complete bust.
AAA: That's something I am not at all comfortable with, and if that language remains in I will be forced to vote against.
Are you indicating that you won't vote for any proposal doing away with the unanimity requirement?
No, ssg, I am against anything that takes away my current veto powers.
This, for example:
A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives favorable votes from at least a simple majority of the eligible players, including Aaron A Aaronson.
would be fine with me.
Anyone have any ideas as to how we can move through the next 25 turns very quickly?
A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives favorable votes from at least a simple majority of the eligible players, including Aaron A Aaronson.
That exact wording would be fine with me, too.
In fact, I pre-vote yes if that is the verbatim text of proposal 309.
Well, I suspect that you'll have some no votes there, but as I've said, I think I know how to bootstrap majority rules once I'm the judge. At least, that's what I intend to assert as judge, and I suspect I'll have a few supporters. So we should really just rush through flatluigi's turn and mine so jay can pass straight majority rules or a supermajority or whatever he thinks is best.
And, no, of course I'm not going to vote yes to enshrine AAA's veto power, even if my veto power gets thrown in in the bargain.
I'd be happy to vote yes for a slightly altered proposal:
A rule-change is adopted if and only if it receives favorable votes from at least a simple majority of the eligible players, including Aaron A Aaronson and ssg.
There'd be some real nice fights over whether "including AAA and ssg" modifies "eligible players" or "simple majority of the eligible players." Maybe I'd vote yes just to see it.