# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/301 "2003-08-14T01:02:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > The sexier version **Achernar** suggestes is basically what I’m thinking will work for now. Well, that’s the last time I do something like _that_. :smack: I vote YES on Proposition 303. Not “MMM, YES”. Not “YES YES OH GOD YES”. Just YES. 😉 Also, I realize that it will slow the game down a little bit, but I think it would be a really good idea if, after this proposal is voted on and either accepted or defeated, **Johnny Bravo** waits about 12 hours before making a proposal and we move on. _Just in case_ anyone has any questions, so we don’t have to backtrack. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/302 "2003-08-14T02:15:00Z")
So we’re waiting for, by my count, **TJDude** and **Little Nemo**. **Nemo** should be here in about an hour, if last night’s any indication. ---
**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 14, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/303 "2003-08-14T12:18:45Z")
**TJdude825** sent me an email last night voting YES. So it’s just **Little Nemo**. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/304 "2003-08-14T14:44:21Z")
Social engagement last night. Didn’t sign on when I got home. I vote yes to Prop 303. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/305 "2003-08-14T15:07:23Z")
I think there needs to be a rule against social engagements. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/306 "2003-08-14T16:22:29Z")
I would assume that now that rule 105 has been made mutable, the next item on the agenda is to change the rules of who has to vote. I think the first thing should be to modify the current rules that require unanimous voting and unanimous consent. My suggestions are already on the table; what ideas do others have? ---
**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 14, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/307 "2003-08-14T16:40:13Z")
Unanimous consent is set in the rules to expire after two full rounds. I’d be inclined to vote for ending it early, and I’m sure it will be proposed, though I fear it might just make it easier for badly-thought out and confusing proposals to be passed. I think the more urgent matter is to do something about unanimous voting - either automatic votes after a certain time period, a “frozen/non-voting” mode, or…? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/308 "2003-08-14T16:46:14Z")
Unanimous consent might eventually expire under the current rules, but we’re only completed three turns. Assuming nobody else joins the game, we’ll have to complete thirty two turns before the simple majority rule goes into effect. In reality, I don’t think we’ll make it that far with unanimity rules. ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/309 "2003-08-14T17:12:25Z")
Consent is in 212 and is different then votes. Consent is only needed after Judgement has been invoked. ---
**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 14, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/310 "2003-08-14T17:25:41Z")
I think that’s consent to continue the game after a Judgment. Maybe we’ re using the wrong term, but what we’re talking about is changing the need for unanimous votes to adopt a rule-change. > [@](#): > > Rule 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. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/311 "2003-08-14T17:45:53Z")
I’m willing to entertain suggestions on what the next proposal should be to keep the game running smoothly. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/312 "2003-08-14T19:13:44Z")
In my estimation, if we want a time limit, we need only change Rule 303 (formerly Rule 105). I suggest changing it to this: _At the time a proposal is made, every player is an eligible voter. If a player has not voted 36 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status. This rule supercedes Rule 207 where they conflict._ This keeps it simple. There’s no auto-voting involved; people simply lose their vote if they don’t make it. ---
**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 14, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/313 "2003-08-14T19:20:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny Bravo \* > \*\*I’m willing to entertain suggestions on what the next proposal should be to keep the game running smoothly. \*\* We need to amend 105 to eliminate the requirement that everyone must vote. Maybe something like: _“A player becomes ineligible to vote for the current proposal under all circumstances if that player does not vote within 48 hours after the author of a proposal calls for votes. They remain ineligible for all future proposals until they attempt to vote on a proposal within the 48 hour period for that proposal. When that occurs, the vote is counted and they return to eligible status.”_ In the second part I’m trying to prevent us having to wait 48 hours every time we vote just because one or more players has disappeared. We’re only held up the first time they fail to vote. They can still get back in the game simply by voting on a proposal within the time limit, but we don’t have to wait for them if everyone else has voted in the first hour or two. Is that clear? ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/314 "2003-08-14T19:24:08Z")
303 cannot supercede 207 unless 303 is made immutable again. It should also be stated how a player may regain their eligibility status. I do not think it would work well to simply state it restarts on the next proposal as someone being away or leaving without notice would hold up every proposal for the full 36 hours. I think it would also leave open the door for breaking quorum unless the unanimity/majority rules are based on currently eligible players. ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/315 "2003-08-14T19:26:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*In my estimation, if we want a time limit, we need only change Rule 303 (formerly Rule 105). I suggest changing it to this: > > _At the time a proposal is made, every player is an eligible voter. If a player has not voted 36 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status. This rule supercedes Rule 207 where they conflict._ > > This keeps it simple. There’s no auto-voting involved; people simply lose their vote if they don’t make it. \*\* But they can be kept from voting if everyone votes before the can make their vote. Perhaps make it so they just have to declare their intention to vote and it will take effect on either the current proposal or the next proposal if there is no current proposal. ---
**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 14, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/316 "2003-08-14T19:43:34Z")
Damn hamsters. Rule 105 did not become Rule 303. Why would it? 303 was a proposal to turn 105 from immutable to mutable, and that’s what it did. No replacing or re-numbering involved. ---
**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 14, 2003, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/317 "2003-08-14T19:45:13Z")
I think my idea solves the problem of people holding up voting. But I forgot about 207. We have to amend that first. Maybe it should be amended to read: \*Each eligible player always has exactly one vote.[/] ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/318 "2003-08-14T19:46:19Z")
Of course 105 becomes 303. Rule 108 says, “If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it.” 303 (or really 304, if it gets changed this turn) can supersede 207 if it says it does. Rule 211 says, “If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.” Don’t you people read the rules? 🙂 ---
**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 14, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/319 "2003-08-14T19:54:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > \*\*We need to amend 105 to eliminate the requirement that everyone must vote. Maybe something like: > > _“A player becomes ineligible to vote for the current proposal under all circumstances if that player does not vote within 48 hours after the author of a proposal calls for votes. > They remain ineligible for all future proposals until they attempt to vote on a proposal within the 48 hour period for that proposal. When that occurs, the vote is counted and they return to eligible status.”_ > \*\* Sorry, that second part should say: _“They remain ineligible for all future proposals until they attempt to vote on a proposal before voting for that proposal has concluded. When that occurs, their vote counts and they return to eligible status.”_ The other way didn’t make sense. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/320 "2003-08-14T19:54:24Z")
Ok, but I’d like a shorter time limit. I think 24 hours is more than reasonable. We have many players, and I think we’d all like to have as many turns as possible. Thoughts? I’d also like to see a rule that imposes a maximum number of players, but I suppose that can wait. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=17)