# 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:** 21
**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 18, 2003, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/401 "2003-08-18T05:40:13Z")
I am thinking, perhaps, about proposing to institute an Officer (to be known as Registrar – or something similar). Purpose being to have a duly elected player who is responsible for maintaining the list of players, the history of Proposals, keep track of current votes, etc – in short, what **zev** is doing now. I just think it should be codified. Thoughts? Comments? Pie? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/402 "2003-08-18T05:41:26Z")
With the understanding that the version posted is the finalized version of Prop 304, I vote AYE with one reservation: Lest we all seem like idiots incapable of spelling, the word is ELIGIBLE. There is no A in eligible. The official version should please reflect that:) ---
**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 18, 2003, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/403 "2003-08-18T05:49:15Z")
Or we could just let you Propose that next time it’s your turn…:dubious: Ow! It was a JOKE! Stop hitting me. ---
**Author:** ![Jonmarzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jonmarzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonmarzie)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/404 "2003-08-18T06:27:40Z")
I’ll vote yes on the proposition 304. I plan on being in the game, although I’m feeling quite a bit like a lurker on this thread. At any rate, I’m looking foreward to my turn. (round?) :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 18, 2003, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/405 "2003-08-18T07:03:13Z")
:smack: ---
**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 18, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/406 "2003-08-18T15:44:23Z")
I think there are flaws in Prop 304, but on balance, I figure some of it is good and we can correct the rest. I vote yes. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/407 "2003-08-18T15:48:40Z")
After much consideration, I vote No. Sorry. ☹ ---
**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 18, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/408 "2003-08-18T15:55:20Z")
Well, that does it then. If I was the only one to hold it up, I might have voted yes, but I, too, was deeply troubled by the penalty aspect of it, especially when there are times, for religious reasons, when I might not be able to vote for 72 hours. I’ll throw my NO vote in there too. 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 18, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/409 "2003-08-18T16:06:11Z")
I haven’t read all of the new posts yet but I guess you guys are waiting on me to vote. So, on proposal 304 as it was worded in the email sent out by Zev I’m afraid I’m going to have to vote NO. I think 36 hours is too short and I don’t like the penalty of being absolutely barred from the next vote. I’m hope I’m not the only one. ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/410 "2003-08-18T16:09:06Z")
I’ll have to toss in a NO as well. Perhaps we should work in a nice multi-stage process: Propose, debate, refine proposal, vote. ---
**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 18, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/411 "2003-08-18T17:29:57Z")
I have to vote no as well, because of A) the “penalty round” (it’s so. . . punitive, and many people may miss a vote due to circumstances beyond one’s control) and B) spelling. ---
**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 18, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/412 "2003-08-18T18:32:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mikie \* > \*\*I am thinking, perhaps, about proposing to institute an Officer (to be known as Registrar – or something similar). Purpose being to have a duly elected player who is responsible for maintaining the list of players, the history of Proposals, keep track of current votes, etc – in short, what **zev** is doing now. > > I just think it should be codified. > > Thoughts? Comments? Pie? \*\* Abandoning that… I’m most likely going to offer up a duplicate of JB’s Proposal with the sole change to be the number of hours. I’m thinking 96. Is that too long? Thoughts? Comments? Pie? ---
**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 18, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/413 "2003-08-18T18:52:26Z")
I think that instead of penalizing someone for missing one vote (regardless of the length of time), penalize him/her for missing X number of consecutive votes (by being kicked out of the game, moved to the behind the last person to make a proposal [so that he has to wait for everyone else to finish proposing before he can again]). Just an idea… 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 19, 2003, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/414 "2003-08-19T06:47:34Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m most likely going to offer up a duplicate of JB’s Proposal with the sole change to be the number of hours. > > I’m thinking 96. Is that too long? I’d suggest eliminating the penalty round concept and also making sure that you include a precedence clause. I also think we should include in the idea that ineligible players lose their turns for proposing new rules. Otherwise the game could shut down suddenly with one inactive person. And do a spell check to make iampunha happy. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/415 "2003-08-19T07:23:03Z")
The spell checker is my preciousssssssssssss ---
**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 19, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/416 "2003-08-19T08:11:39Z")
How about this as a suggestion? Proposal 305 - When a rule change is officially proposed by a player, a call for votes shall be in effect. Any player who does not vote within 96 hours from the time the proposal is made will not be considered to be an eligible voter for the purpose of voting on this proposal. This rule takes precedence over rule 303. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/417 "2003-08-19T13:00:40Z")
I’m thinking that if each individual proposal makes as little change as possible while still making progress, it’ll have a better chance of getting passed, and soon we’ll have something usable, and lots of people will have lots of points. ---
**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 19, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/418 "2003-08-19T13:22:35Z")
Or how about simply changing 303 to read: > [@](#): > > Every player is an eligible voter. Players have X hours after a proposal is made to cast a vote on the proposal. Failure to cast a vote shall result in the player casting an “ABSTAIN” vote. ABSTAIN votes shall be ignored when determining the majority or uninamity required for passage of a proposal. 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 19, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/419 "2003-08-19T16:42:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*Or how about simply changing 303 to read: > > “Every player is an eligible voter. Players have X hours after a proposal is made to cast a vote on the proposal. Failure to cast a vote shall result in the player casting an “ABSTAIN” vote. ABSTAIN votes shall be ignored when determining the majority or uninamity required for passage of a proposal.” > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* This is good as far as it goes but it still leaves the original problem that I thought we were trying to solve. Once people start dropping out we’ll be forced to wait the full X hours every time. Maybe that’s acceptable or maybe we can have another amendment to address that. But if we feel that it isn’t acceptable then I think it makes sense to address it all in one amendment. I’m thinking that one of my earlier ideas might still make sense. _“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 that proposal’s 48 hour voting period. When that occurs, the vote is counted and they return to eligible status.”_ We could change the time period if 48 hours isn’t acceptable but I like the idea. What it’s saying is that if you miss a vote, then nobody is required to wait for you in any suceeding votes. But if you do show up and vote before all eligible players have voted then your vote is counted and you are returned to eligible status. Nobody is penalized too harshly, nobody can hold up the game (intentionally or unintentionally), and a player can always get back in just by voting on the next proposal. I like it. Any thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/420 "2003-08-19T16:46:59Z")
Can I join too? I’ve emailed Zev. My suggestion is that we want to allow popular, convenient proposals designed to get the game moving passed quicky, but allow debate on controversial ones. How about tying the time remaining to people voting? Something like: _After (a) half of the players have voted, or (b) a vote has become decided, any player can call a halt to voting. An hour thereafter all players who have not voted become ineligible voters for that turn._ Obviously the time period could be drastically shortened or extended depending on what kind of game we want. But at the moment, I think anything that will get it passed is the first priority. Or some kind of majority required. Or the proposer, or judge, or administrator could call the vote. Or the time could extend after one (or perhaps two) players have voted in the grace period. In the interests of moving the game along in case I’m run over by a bus, assuming it’s allowed, I’m going to put my vote where my mouth is and pre-vote: _I vote ‘yes’ if I do not respond within an hour of a player emailing me at [jv233@cam.ac.uk](mailto:jv233@cam.ac.uk) asking me to vote, after (a) or (b) above. I may change my vote before voting is concluded, though._ I’ll withdraw this when the game gets heated but for now I’d rather help the game, even if I miss some votes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=22)