# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![BraheSilver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@BraheSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraheSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/361 "2003-08-15T10:02:45Z")
If my second lung has taught me anything, it’s that redundancy is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![BraheSilver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@BraheSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraheSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/362 "2003-08-15T10:06:13Z")
To self: Think before hitting “reply,” dammit! And perhaps we should append “provided the vote meets all other requirements for eligibility” to the end of part 2. [size=1]“Two votes for ‘NO,’ eight for ‘YES,’ and one for ‘BLAAARGH,’ but it’s valid.” ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/363 "2003-08-15T10:13:04Z")
Ha, perhaps you’re right about redundancy, although I have to admit that I found your proposal 302 delightful in its simplicity. In Nomic, redundancy has the potential to get in the way. It’s harder to change two rules that overlap than it is to change one rule. Case in point, 303 and 207. If it’s redudancy within a single rule, there’s probably not much danger, but I have grown wary of it. As for what counts as a “valid” vote, I think that as long as we’re clear on what “unanimous” (109) and “simple majority” (203) mean, then there’s no reason that “BLAAAARGH” shouldn’t be valid. ---
**Author:** ![BraheSilver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@BraheSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraheSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/364 "2003-08-15T10:37:42Z")
You know, now I’m tempted to change my vote to ‘BLAAARGH’ on 303 just to see what happens. I’m not going to change it because I want it passed, but I’m dang tempted. > [@](#): > > In Nomic, redundancy has the potential to get in the way. It’s harder to change two rules that overlap than it is to change one rule. Case in point, 303 and 207. If it’s redudancy within a single rule, there’s probably not much danger, but I have grown wary of it. I do think that this is a flaw in my perception. As a new gamer, I don’t have any real strategy and no experience in playing to guide me. I’m trying to build a solid foundation on which to place my war machines to bring down my wrath, and I don’t want anything knocking me over once I get going. I think you’re seeking to build a web of rules - one that will hold up and flex to support you, but if you happened to do _this_ and _this_ and _that_ you’d be free and clear to do whatever you want. I’ve realized something about myself: my inner poet gets released with a loss of sleep. Way to turn a metaphor! ---
**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 15, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/365 "2003-08-15T15:54:10Z")
It’s been a while since we’ve heard from **zev.** When do we start to worry? ---
**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 15, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/366 "2003-08-15T16:19:23Z")
I don’t like the vagueness of the phrase “has been heard from” and think it should be rigorously defined in the submitted proposal. ---
**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 15, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/367 "2003-08-15T16:25:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > … **davidm** , I don’t think that my previous suggestion had the contradiction that you think it had. The 72 hours thing only applies when the vote is called for. At least, that’s what I meant for it to say. Check it out: > > _ **At the time that a vote on a proposal is called for** , every player who has been heard from in the past 72 hours is an eligible voter. If a player lost their eligibility status last round, and they have not voted 12 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status. If any player has not voted 36 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status. This rule supersedes Rule 207 where they conflict._ Yes, I see that now. In that case I think I like it as it stands. We might want to change “heard from” to something like “posted a message or voted” but I don’t think it’s essential. ---
**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 15, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/368 "2003-08-15T16:34:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > \*\*Yes, I see that now. In that case I think I like it as it stands. We might want to change “heard from” to something like “posted a message or voted” but I don’t think it’s essential. \*\* Oops. Looks like I’ve gotten a little behind and things have passed me by. Ignore my previous message. ---
**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 15, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/369 "2003-08-15T16:38:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mikie \* > It’s been a while since we’ve heard from **zev.** When do we start to worry? Zev may not have any electricity. Related to that, I think in this instance the current proposer should wait a reasonable amount of time after power is fully restored before calling for a vote. Just a friendly suggestion of course. By the rules he can do what he wants. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/370 "2003-08-15T16:47:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spurious George \* > I don’t like the vagueness of the phrase “has been heard from” and think it should be rigorously defined in the submitted proposal. Okay, in order to do that, we should identify when you think it’s ambiguous. When do you think it’s ambiguous? ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/371 "2003-08-15T17:13:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > \*\*Zev may not have any electricity. > > Related to that, I think in this instance the current proposer should wait a reasonable amount of time after power is fully restored before calling for a vote. Just a friendly suggestion of course. By the rules he can do what he wants. \*\* Looking up the information on zev’s domain I would have to say is would be without power. Anyone want his phone number? 😉 ---
**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 15, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/372 "2003-08-15T17:18:14Z")
Actually, I think **davidm** ’s wording is an OK substitute: > [@](#): > > We might want to change “heard from” to something like “posted a message or voted” I’d rather play the game than abuse the game. I just don’t want rules with ill-defined clauses holding up the game. “Heard from” could be loosely interpreted to mean: Posted on any SMDB topic. Logged into the SMDB. Spoke with any other player by phone. Emailed any other player on any subject. Appeared on national or local television. Spoke with any other human being in the last 72 hours, etc… Even “heard from within the confines of the game” is better, though still not perfectly defined. As I’m descended from lawyers, I think ironclad language is always best. Just because **I** won’t try to exploit loopholes doesn’t mean a future bored or malicious player wouldn’t. (“I call for Judgment on my eligibility status for Proposal 331. I crank called davidm at work 48 hours ago. I’ve been heard from.” :)) ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2003, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/373 "2003-08-15T17:26:05Z")
I’m not saying that ironclad language is a bad idea, sheesh. 🙂 I’m just saying that if we are going to nail it down, we should decide what we want it to say. I would have thought that if somebody had called or emailed another player, that should count. If you disagree, fine. ---
**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 15, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/374 "2003-08-15T17:32:13Z")
Clear language is important, but I think we may be getting a little too hung up on it. I’m not pointing any fingers as I’m very guilty of it myself. I think we just need to be reasonably clear without going overboard. A judge can use these discussions as an aid in determining “original intent” if there’s any question in the future. ---
**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 16, 2003, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/375 "2003-08-16T05:23:02Z")
I’m back from involuntary offline exile. Glad to see I didn’t miss any votes. In general I can concur with the proposal that’s forming on establishing a time limit on voting. Any details or glitches can be resolved by future rules. For example, I’m predicting that the time limits in the 24-72 hour area that people are talking about now will seem too short in the future. The game is new now and at the peak of interest, but in a few weeks we might not want to devote this much attention to it on a daily basis. But when and if we reach that point, there’ll be the opportunity to reset the parameters. ---
**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 16, 2003, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/376 "2003-08-16T06:44:53Z")
I just had a thought. The problem isn’t just with people not showing up to vote. What happens when a player doesn’t show up for his turn to make a proposal? ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/377 "2003-08-16T13:13:06Z")
Since this rule is concerning eligibility we can define it for players proposal. I’m thinking something along the lines of 24 hour limit to post a “draft” rule by the next eligible player. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/378 "2003-08-17T00:53:35Z")
As far as I’m concerned, **Johnny Bravo** can go ahead and make a proposal. Whatever he wants. We still have to wait for everyone to vote this round anyway, so it’s not like we’re really excluding anyone. ---
**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 17, 2003, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/379 "2003-08-17T02:49:27Z")
OK, I’m back. First the power went off, and then, of course, it was _Shabbos_. But now that we’re back, we can see that 303 passed. That makes Rule 303 (formerly known as 105) mutable. Now we’re waiting for **Johnny Bravo** ’s proposal 304. And **MarkofT** , you can call me anytime (heck, you could have looked up my number in the phone book too. This _is_ my real name…) Zev Steinhardt ---
**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 17, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/380 "2003-08-17T03:02:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*And **MarkofT** , you can call me anytime (heck, you could have looked up my number in the phone book too. This _is_ my real name…) > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* Yknow, I would just feel too stalkerish :::shudders::: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=20)