MetaFilter's site and server can always use upgrades of hardware, software, and bandwidth, as well as more stable funding for continued support of its small but high-skilled moderation and backend team! If you'd like to chip in, you can donate to Metafilter.

Talk:MeFi Nomic

From Mefi Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

It's all here now:

Invocation of Judgment

Per rule 212, I invoke judgment on the question of whether MeFi Nomic has already begun (i.e., the rules are currently binding on the players) at the time of this invocation.

Suggestion: All posts should be signed with ~~~~ so that we know who posted them without having to look at the page history. To whit: Who the hell are you, and who made you the judge?! :P Resrever 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If the game hasn't started, there can be no "Invocation of Judgement", as there is not yet a rule 212 we are bound by. We can't apply game rules to a debate about whether the game has begun.Meatbomb 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I did sign my post, it's just that my post consisted of two paragraphs and I only signed the entire post, as it didn't seem necessary to sign each individual paragraph of my post. Clearly I was wrong, since other people have since inserted other comments between my two paragraphs. Chuck 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Second, I am not the judge, I have not claimed to be the judge, I am invoking judgment. Chuck 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've noticed some confusion about how to use WikiML. So here's the MediaWiki formatting help page. People new to editing wikis may want to briefly look it over, to see how to bold, italicize, make links and lists, etc. etc.

Comment: "When we have 29 people, we kick off round one" does not appear to be part of the rules and may not have any legal effect. Chuck 15:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think that the requirement for 29 players is an important de facto rule, as the initial rules strongly suggest that there is an accepted system for determining the order of play, which order can not be properly determined before the identities of all eligible voters (players) have been established at the meeting place (here). Hence, no meaningful actions can be taken until the requisite number of voters (players) has been reached. --Mister A 18:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reaction: OK, I'll buy that "29" is merely a clarification of an ambiguous existing rule ("When does the game start"). The point then is that "When we hit 29 players" is a clarification and not a rule, and therefore does not impose any player limits beyond determining when the game starts. If it is a rule, then it needs to be added to the rules page, and it is my understanding that the only way something gets on there is by a vote. Further, we should all be clear that judge's decisions do not carry nor need recognize precedent, so as soon as its somebody else's turn, this whole "29" business goes away. To whit, from the Peters rules:

Nomic even makes some rules explicit in order to make them amendable, when in most games they are implicit —rules to obey the rules, rules that players each start with zero points, and so on. No tacit understanding that one brings to most games simply qua games, let alone any explicit rule, is beyond the amendment power of Nomic.

Resrever 18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Judgment (RFJ): We also need a ruling on Rule 201, since we're not identifying players by full name. I'd also like to propose that the first rule we consider is an amendment to rule 201, or otherwise on each turn we're going to need a judgment again about who's turn it is next. Resrever 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Since Taksi Putra suggested and started this he has sole discretion to set the rules prior to start, initial order etc. (obviously if his initial rules suck I'm not playing and taking my ball home with me). Once he declares GO! then the rules take over. Jeblis 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reaction: Seconded Xorry 03:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific to MeFiNomic

Current Rules

I've created MeFi Nomic Rules so that everyone is clear on what the rules are. As rules get added, amended, or repealed, that page can be updated to reflect the changes. Further, the handy Wiki "page history" functionality will allow anyone to see how the rules have changed over time.

Note: I simply took the rules verbatim from and therefore there may be:

  • Copyright issues
  • Clarifications needed, as the rules contain several phrases like "in the case of mail or computer games, the procedure is x." Given that this is an online version of the game, we may want to tidy that up a bit. I didn't in deference to the invocation of rule 212. Resrever 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no set of workable, agreed upon rules. We don't have 29 people. Therefore, there can not yet be an invocation of judgement / application of rule 212. So I have edited the rules to reflect the context we are playing in. Meatbomb 19:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the amendment really cuts it -- we don't have any rules as to what counts as a surname and there are non alphabetical characters. Wiki names would be effective though. Unicode (same as ASCII for the first 128 i.e. common characters) order would allow for the non alphabetical characters (but does distinguish between upper and lower case) .Amended accordingly. Tallus 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Common Practice

This is not proposed as a rule (although it may be once the game formally begins) but as an 'common practice' in the playing of MeFiNomic: that in recognition of the game's affiliation with, that rules proposed shall be referred to as "ponies", votes in favor as "favorites", votes against as "flags", and any player designated to be a Judge as a "mod". Further MeFi-related terminology should be adopted without the requirement that it be offered as a separate rule. wendell

I'd be happy to second that motion, provided votes against be termed "callouts" as opposed to "flags" as "flag" would be better used as a call for a point of order. So this reply to wendell would a flag, even though I indicated that I'd favorite his proposal. robocop is bleeding

This idea completely sucks, is it not geeky enough that we are playing nomic? What next, shall we play in roles? Meatbomb

Suggestion: None of this falls under the topic of errata. Relocate this discussion to the appropriate section.--Mister A 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Appologia: That was my fault. I put up the subheadings in order to separate hypothetical speculation about possible rules proposals from actual discussion about the official rules I put above. So if this or any other heading needs changing, go ahead. Resrever 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Amended: I have changed this section head to Common Practice.--Mister A 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Ideas for Round 1

  1. flatluigi's idea seems the way to go.
  2. Let's have a page for each set of a hundred rules: i.e a page 300-399, one more for 400-499 etc.
  3. Is there a simple widget that we can setup for polling?
  4. The order of play shall be as per MeFi username, ordered by Unicode (ignoring case).
  5. Anything else?

It seems to me that the judge would be the last person by play order? Who has a handle ending x or z? Meatbomb 02:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Meatbomb: Why?

Meatbomb: Too late, we've already started. Seems we only have and order, a start signal. No Judge. Jeblis 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeblis: I think I may have jumped the gun.. waiting on Taksi now. Xorry 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Meatbomb: wait for your turn man. Taksi Putra 03:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why have people edited the rules already? Good ideas or not, we should revert to the original set. Jeblis 03:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all here now: