This is now copypasta from the recent judgement on accounts.
"The current players are those holding the following accounts:
1 (user id 36)
Aaron A Aaronson (user id 7)
backseatpilot (user id 25)
Chuck (user id 23)
ctmf (user id 30)
flatluigi (user id 6)
gerryblog (user id 19)
jay (user id 3)
jeblis (user id 9)
mosessis (user id 12)
shelleycat (user id 11)
ssg (user id 37)
tallus (user id 20)
vernondalhart (user id 38)
volkspider (user id 21)
A new player may request to join the game by posting to the forum. The current players then have 48 hours to object. Objection may only be made on the belief that the new player is a sockpuppet. No other basis for objection is allowed. Rebuttal by the prospective player is allowed. Objections may be retracted within the 48 hour time.
If, after 48 hours, the number of objections exceeds 1/2 of the total number of current players, the prospective player may not join the game. Otherwise, the prospective player becomes a player of the game effective at the beginning the following turn.
Any previous player of the game (holding an account with a user id less than 38) may rejoin the game without following the above procedure. They become a player again immediately upon request."
Modifications and suggestions welcomed.
Please note that the player list complies with this judgement and is not up for debate. Any new players not mentioned in that judgement are unfortunately not playing at this moment, but this will give them the option to play as soon as the rule is passed.
So long as jay doesn't get all meta-judge with his admin rights (as he is often wont to do), I am here, participating and playing. Apologies, flatluigi, but I will (obviously) be voting against any proposal that attempts to exclude me from the game.
It seems we have two variants of Aaron here now, flatluigi. Does your list mean to include the new AAA Aaron A Aaronson, or the original Aaron A Aaronson (commonly referred to as AAA)?
Excuse me?
Your player list is not in compliance with the < a href="http://blogshares.com:81/mefino/node/83#comment-1737">most recent judgment, is illegal and invalid and bad and wrong, and this is not up for debate.
Oops, let's try that again:
flatluigi, your player list is not in compliance with the most recent judgment, is illegal and invalid and bad and wrong and racist and immoral, and this is not up for debate.
This is a discussion and not a proposal.
Abron, this rule is far from trying to be exclusionary. It's doing the exact opposite, rather: it's setting up an option for new players to join. You, Aaron, sockpuppet, and by extension vernon all joined after the start of the game. We have assumed you are players, but that's never been set in stone. This will allow you all to be adopted into the game through a simple process.
Abron, this rule is far from trying to be exclusionary.
Far be it for me to put words in Abron's mouth, flatluigi, but by having a list that doesn't include him and a bunch of byzantine hoops he must jump through to get his name on the list sounds pretty exclusionary to me. Up to this point it has been "all welcome, just sign up".
Why do you hate Abron? What are your crimes, flatluigi? What are you afraid of?
Oh, and in solidarity with Abron I'll be exercising my veto on this proposal when it comes to vote.
I think it needs the following changes: Append "The order of names on these lists has no bearing on turn order." to paragraph 4. Add offby1 to the Other List. Delete "specific, singular."
Also, as ssg mentioned, I think we need to include a way to remove players that participate but refuse to vote (i.e. that deliberately try to hold up the game). We could allow that with "unanimous explicit consent," but that won't work if we have two people doing it. Any ideas?
There's no period in Aaron A Aaronson.
Alright, another modification, this time copypasta from the most recent judgement. Let's get this shipshape and ruleworthy.
I swear I'll invoke judgment on that period.
Period deleted.
I think there's a potential snag with including the actual list ("The current players are those holding the following accounts:") in a rule -- it becomes uneditable unless an amendment is passed. If we adopt the current form, then new players won't be defined as "current players." That's why my version created lists outside the rules but included strict guidelines for how they could be altered.
volkspider has a good point. Also, since the judgment is only in force for one turn, I could put in the uid less than 38 part, but that won't be true in the general case. I think you can just say "any former player, using the same account as before, may rejoin..."
The list could be replaced by "the current players are the players of the previous turn, plus any players who have joined in accordance with the rules on the previous turn, minus any players who have resigned."
Starting next turn, "players of the previous turn" will have an unambiguous meaning. I had to list them because right now it has no definition.
Also, what happens if a new player turns out later to be a sockpuppet? I hand-waved on that in the judgment.
The judgment was illegal in that it retroactively attempts to define players. I was already a registered and participating player at the time of judgment. Just like vernondalhart. I am a registered MetaFilter member, who went to great efforts to scrupulously follow the judgement of ctmf in 309-2 to bring myself into compliance with his judgment.
It's obvious that all of this legalistic crap is an effort to have me removed from the game. I wasn't aware when I joined that Belgians were not welcome here, but that is becoming more and more obvious as things progress. I hate to seem so belligerent, but like Rosa Parks or Ghandi I feel there is no choice but to fight for my rights.
I am not a sockpuppet. I am a human being. I am a MAN.
The only way I will be removed from this game is by my account being closed by the admins holding those powers on this server. And if that happens, then it is clear that we are not really playing nomic, but are rather pretending to play nomic at the whim and discretion of the server admin.
> The judgment was illegal in that it retroactively attempts to define players.
Have a rules cite for that assertion? Definition is not illegal. Retroactive judgments are not illegal. You're grasping at straws.
Alright, before this comes up for vote, I would like to hear the side of the Aaron mentioned in this proposal on whether he supports this or not. I would also like to know exactly the reason why.
Do you mean me, flatluigi?
I think that in ruling (309-2) ctmf made a judgment that allowed Abron to join as a player. I don't know if there was some back-channel communication, or he had a change of heart, or what, but obviously that state was not permitted to continue for any length of time. As invocations continued to rain down on him, he quite wisely pointed out that his ruling had already answered the question regarding player status.
After that, when he made this much more exclusive ruling, along with all the language regarding how new players could join, I was really surprised. I never thought we would see ctmf as an activist judge, but here we are. I suppose activism in judges is only a bad thing when they are ruling against your wishes.
I don't see how letting Meatbomb join this game is the end of the world, but there are some here who are obviously dead set against letting that happen.
Au contraire. Meatbomb can join the game if he is not a sockpuppet. Ruling otherwise would be illegal.
Huh? Pass me the glue. Would you please elaborate, ctmf?
Meatbomb has said (on his userpage at MeFi) that he is Abron.
According to the judgment, nobody can prevent a player from joining. However, a sock puppet is not a player.
I suggest Meatbomb complete the sockpuppet screening procedure and vindicate himself as a player.
Aaron, I still want to know whether you'd vote for this or not.
flatluigi, whether he will or not, it's time to post it. Things are getting held up and it's likely somebody will randomly decide to torpedo the proposal anyway.
This bit bothers me. I'm not sure whether it would be enough to cause me to vote against it, but I definitely don't like it.
How are we to determine whether someone's stated belief that a new player is a sockpuppet is sincere? Are we to have judges rule on whether such a statement is sincere or not, and discount a player's objection if the judge believes it is due to something other than the player's belief?
I'd be much happier with this if those two sentences were simply deleted from the proposal. They're unenforceable at best, and means for a judge to ignore stated objections at worst.
I don't see how you can legislate sincerity. In the judgment, I had to point out that the only legal basis for objecting was the sockpuppet belief, as a guideline to the players. Not "I think he'll disrupt the game" or "some other reason". Any other reason would run afoul of rule 116 and as such, should be ignored.
I suppose the only real way to enforce that, other than the honor system, is if the objector was stupid enough to give a reason other than sockpuppetry. Even so, the lines still function as amplifying explanation. Maybe the two sentences could be simplified into one.
None of the proposals you guys are proposing make the game more fun to play. I can't wait till we have majority rule so I can propose my "we all must address each other in rhyme" proposal.
Exactly.
flatluigi: I'll vote against this, as it all seems designed with the specific intent of excluding Abron. If you add him to the golden list I will support it.
I will also vote against any proposal that forces me to address other players in rhyme. Because then it would be much more embarrassing to talk to Chuck.
Well, we're at an impasse, then, because I'm sure at least one person will vote "no" if Abron's included.
I guess it isn't the end of the world, not the first time we have had a failed proposal...
Anyways, the sooner this fails the sooner we see gerryblog's magic ram-it-down-our-throats judgeship. I am looking forward to that.
On that point we certainly agree.
This, after gerryblog proposed the winner of this game get a prize in the other game. I smell determination.
I hope that if gerryblog's magic results in *DING DING DING winner!!!11!* Many / most of us here will be up for another go...
I respect the game too much to just declare myself the winner.
I want to beat you all the right way.
Amen to that.
I want to beat you all the right way.
That's a really interesting point. What is "the right way"? I haven't followed any previous nomics, but my feeling is that a judicial forcing of the issue, especially this early, would seem like "the wrong way" to almost everyone else. What would happen then? Would we all say "Yay, you sort of win but didn't really, let's keep playing."? Would the game collapse? Would the "winner" throw a hissy fit and walk away?
Aaron: The right way is any way that's acceptable in a real life game of nomic. I don't think we've had a good, stable way of human cloning yet, so sockpuppets are out.
The right way is to settle some very basic issues like this before starting the game clock, but this is the path we took. I don't regret my part in it.
Let's save "next round" talk till somebody wins. This could take years.
I think we'd have to give the winner "one win." Then start over with the default rule set and try to prevent the same thing happening again.
I'm not against that.