# Anyone for a game of Nomic? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 10, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142 "2003-08-10T04:12:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/181 "2003-08-12T18:39:47Z")
Rule 105, as it stands currently: “105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.” Obtained [here](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set), for those who are lost like me (though I think I’m finding my way back). New Theoretical Prop 303: Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes. However, if 10% or fewer players cannot be found, the turn can be declared over (and veto or acceptance of a proposal based on votes present, with no aye or nay assumption made about the lack of votes from one or more players) for the purpose of a new proposal **if and only if** that new proposal has no effect on the previous proposal. Since it isn’t Officially My Turn Yet, I welcome any suggestions to that (such as “dude, just propose that 105 be stricken with necessary commonsense caveats”). ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/182 "2003-08-12T18:43:30Z")
You have to make 105 mutuable first. As it stands 105 can’t be changed. You have to transform it from immutable to mutable. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/183 "2003-08-12T18:46:03Z")
BTW, the rules for our game can be found on my site [here](http://nomic.izev.com/crules.html). Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/184 "2003-08-12T18:51:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*Rule 105, as it stands currently: > > “105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.” Obtained [here](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set), for those who are lost like me (though I think I’m finding my way back). > > New Theoretical Prop 303: Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes. However, if 10% or fewer players cannot be found, the turn can be declared over (and veto or acceptance of a proposal based on votes present, with no aye or nay assumption made about the lack of votes from one or more players) for the purpose of a new proposal **if and only if** that new proposal has no effect on the previous proposal. > > Since it isn’t Officially My Turn Yet, I welcome any suggestions to that (such as “dude, just propose that 105 be stricken with necessary commonsense caveats”). \*\* We need to make 105 mutable first. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/185 "2003-08-12T18:58:12Z")
OK. I think I understand. Or at least I’ll fake it. New Double-Secret Theoretical Prop 303: Rule 105 is mutable. Do we need to make any other immutable ones mutable or vice-versa? I mean, one could theoretically propose “Rules 101-106 are mutable”, yes? Just trying to get the most out of my turn:) ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/186 "2003-08-12T19:05:26Z")
**iampunha** I think you can only transmute 1 rule at a time. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/187 "2003-08-12T19:07:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*OK. I think I understand. Or at least I’ll fake it. > > New Double-Secret Theoretical Prop 303: Rule 105 is mutable. > Do we need to make any other immutable ones mutable or vice-versa? I mean, one could theoretically propose “Rules 101-106 are mutable”, yes? > > Just trying to get the most out of my turn:) \*\* According to (my reading) of Rule 103, no. Note the singular use of “an immutable rule.” > [@](#): > > A rule-change is any of the following:… (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/188 "2003-08-12T19:07:52Z")
Bah. Someone needs to make Nomic’s Horadric Cube better;) (I hope SOMEONE understands that joke) ---
**Author:** ![capybara](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/capybara/32/202_2.png) [@capybara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capybara)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/189 "2003-08-12T19:15:58Z")
Iamp-- Ugh, someone DOES get the reference, unfortunately. I feel like I’ve spent half my adult life listening to “Ugh, gotta pawn some of this stuff” and “I am overburdened” from the laptop across the couch. . . ---
**Author:** ![Stage\_Manager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stage_manager/32/7267_2.png) [@Stage\_Manager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stage_Manager)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/190 "2003-08-12T19:19:42Z")
I think, IMHO, that the suggested Prop 303 should read (in part) “…that Rule 105 be transmuted from immutable to mutable…” Just for clarity, and unambiguity. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/191 "2003-08-12T19:19:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > According to (my reading) of Rule 103, no. Note the singular use of “an immutable rule.” > > > [@](#): > > > > A rule-change is any of the following:… (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. > > Zev Steinhardt Just for the sake of clarity, this is a hypothetical question. My Prop is gonna be “rule 105 is hereby made mutable” or something to that effect. But it seems to me that Rule 103 defines what _is_ a rule-change, but does not define what is _not_ a rule change, such that I think it is an assumption, though a valid one, to say that this rule implicitly states that only one rule’s mutability status can be changed per Proposition. I think it’s similar to the outwardly stated “any right not explicitly given to the people or to the states is given to the people” in this country’s laws. Except that in this case it’s not outright stated. I just think that here, absence of anything saying “you can’t mutate mroe than one rule at a time” means it isn’t against the rules. Of course, this is a largely moot point, as one could merely Prop 304 right in with “rule 103 is hereby made mutable”. I just don’t think we should be making assumptions here:) ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/192 "2003-08-12T19:23:55Z")
[Soapbox] I think that our first priority (as a group) has to be to ensure the continuation of the game. That means addressing the possible situations: A player disappearing (allowing for his eventual removal from the game). The next player (who is to propose the next rule) disappearing. (I.e. a time limit to propose new rules when it’s your turn). The disappearence of this message board (Cecil forbid, but you never know). I’m sure that there are others, but those three are the ones that first come to mind and the ones that have the most immediate chance of bringing the game to a halt. Just a suggestion… [/Soapbox] Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/193 "2003-08-12T19:26:00Z")
BTW, I’ve got to say that despite the crisis, this has been fun so far (no sarcasm… I’m being serious!) Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/194 "2003-08-12T19:31:13Z")
All hail **Soup**! I’ve heard from him. He’s voted on 301 and 302. So, I’m adding him as a new player now since he NOW met the eligibility requirements. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/195 "2003-08-12T19:32:05Z")
OK, New Double-Secret Proposal 303 (now with 33% more legalese!): Rule 105 is hereby transmuted from immutable to mutable. ---
**Author:** ![Stage\_Manager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stage_manager/32/7267_2.png) [@Stage\_Manager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stage_Manager)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/196 "2003-08-12T19:32:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > Of course, this is a largely moot point, as one could merely Prop 304 right in with “rule 103 is hereby made mutable”. I just don’t think we should be making assumptions here:) \*\* But then, if we just propose a new rule that explicitly states that more than one rule may be changed per turn, that would save the step of transmuting 103, then amending it. I can’t see anything in the rules about mutable and immutable rules clarifying each other, only about direct conlfict, and that, even, is between rules of like kind, not a conflict between mutable and immutable rules. ---
**Author:** ![Spurious\_George](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Spurious\_George](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spurious_George)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/197 "2003-08-12T19:35:01Z")
Gah. Common sense aside, I’m in. Please add me to the bottom of the list, Zev. Email a-coming. (I’ve played a couple of Nomic games before, but they always broke down within the first few votes.) ---
**Author:** ![Stage\_Manager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stage_manager/32/7267_2.png) [@Stage\_Manager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stage_Manager)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/198 "2003-08-12T19:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*OK, New Double-Secret Proposal 303 (now with 33% more legalese!): > > Rule 105 is hereby transmuted from immutable to mutable. \*\* Just to clarify: I know that you meant **suggested** Proposal 303. It’s not your turn yet. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/199 "2003-08-12T19:37:39Z")
Ack! Sorry! This thread moves _fast_! (I’m used to those slow, meandering Diplomacy games.) No, I’m not the same person as that imposter on Fathom. I’ve never even signed up there. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/200 "2003-08-12T19:42:49Z")
> [@](#): > > But then, if we just propose a new rule that explicitly states that more than one rule may be changed per turn, that would save the step of transmuting 103, then amending it. Nope: > [@](#): > > Nomic > > Initial Set of Rules > > Immutable Rules > > … > > A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. > > (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) IE you first have to say “no, wait, let’s make that one mutable” before you can change it. If a Prop came up Just Now saying “rule 103 shall be changed to…”, it would be vetoed because _as of right now_, Rule 103 is immutable. There’s nothing saying that you can’t change a rules status re: (im)mutability, and “no rule is absolutely immune to change” clears up confusion about whether or not we can change immutable rules. But you _cannot_ change an immutable rule without first making it mutable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=11)