# 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:** 23
**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 21, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/441 "2003-08-21T17:33:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shade \* > \*\*…Or someone voting makes them eligible for that turn only, to become eligible for every turn they need ot vote in 3 in a row? \*\* Something like this would be good. We could modify my suggested rule to say that once someone loses “eligibility” they have to vote x times in a row before they can regain full elegibility. So if someone misses a vote, we’re not required to wait for them for the next x turns. We have to be careful about making x to big because we don’t want a situation where everyone has become ineligible which would mean we wouldn’t have to wait for anyone before saying that voting is concluded! If we wanted to we could also modify it to say that we will wait no more than 2 hours (or 10 minutes, or whatever) for them, rather than not waiting at all. I’ll have to think about how it could be reworded. Anyone else is welcome to take a stab at it. ---
**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 21, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/442 "2003-08-21T18:23:18Z")
> [@](#): > > How about you combine it with my suggestion, such that the time limit is shorter (maybe even a few hours, or maybe a day) but can be extended if someone specifically requests? **Shade** , I think that’s way _way_ too short, and would needlessly penalize those who can’t check every day. I’d vote against anything with a 24-hour or less time period involved. I think 72-96 hours is the time frame we should be looking at, as it gives people the freedom to do things like leave town for a weekend, observe religious holidays, get a life for a day :), etc. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/443 "2003-08-21T18:26:50Z")
Always waiting an hour would make sure someone has a chance to vote. How about: \*After a proposal all players are eligible. Inactive and active players who haven’t voted become ineligible in 1h and 36h respectively. Voting re-eligiblizes someone. An ‘active’ player is defined as having voted on the last three proposals.\* ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/444 "2003-08-21T18:33:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spurious George \* > \*\ ***Shade** , I think that’s way _way_ too short, and would needlessly penalize those who can’t check every day. I’d vote against anything with a 24-hour or less time period involved. I think 72-96 hours is the time frame we should be looking at, as it gives people the freedom to do things like leave town for a weekend, observe religious holidays, get a life for a day :), etc. \*\* I was trying to cater to both those who want to say ‘Don’t do anything without me,’ and ‘Get on with it, don’t wait.’ Not to mention ‘What? Oh yeah, Nomic.’ For instance Zev said he didn’t mind not voting every turn if he couldn’t make it. I also would rather the game went on. If you want to make sure you can vote you can request the full (3 day?) time, but I didn’t know if that was necessary for someone who wasn’t really bothered. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/445 "2003-08-21T19:37:03Z")
Am I right in understanding that we’re still only waiting to hear from one player? If so, **zev** , could you email him? ---
**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 21, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/446 "2003-08-21T19:41:05Z")
No we’re not. We’re now waiting for 305 to be proposed. Zev ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/447 "2003-08-21T19:48:53Z")
Ah, oops. I see refreshing the status board that we’re done with 304. Very good. Carry on! ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/448 "2003-08-21T20:35:21Z")
Technically **Archernar** is correct as we are waiting to hear from one player. Not to vote but to propose his rule. 😉 ---
**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 21, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/449 "2003-08-21T21:00:10Z")
{{Current Rule 203 text for reference: 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. }} Proposal 305: To change the text of Rule 203 to read as follows: A rule-change is considered adopted with a simple majority vote of all registered players. At the moment of a simple majority being reached, it is the Proposer’s decision, in eir sole discretion, whether to wait for the remaining players to vote, or to close the voting and continue with the game. _**(end of Proposal)**_ I think this should work. I hope. ---
**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 21, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/450 "2003-08-21T21:53:44Z")
Hmm. . . Thinking. . . I vote yes on prop 305. ---
**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 21, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/451 "2003-08-21T21:57:17Z")
Nice idea, **Mikie**. I like it. But wouldn’t this conflict with 303 (and since 303 will have a lower number, it [requiring that everyone vote] would take precedence [as per 211])? Of course, this is solvable by providing a line that says that this rule supercedes 211 in this respect. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/452 "2003-08-21T22:07:43Z")
OK, that’s a nice simple solution. I vote yes. > [@](#): > > At the moment of a simple majority being reached… I assume this means when over half have voted for or half voted against. Is it clear that that is stated unambiguously? ---
**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 21, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/453 "2003-08-21T22:14:52Z")
Mikie, that’s an official, really Proposed Proposal and everything, yes? I vote YES as well if it is. ---
**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 22, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/454 "2003-08-22T00:45:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*Nice idea, **Mikie**. I like it. But wouldn’t this conflict with 303 (and since 303 will have a lower number, it [requiring that everyone vote] would take precedence [as per 211])? > > Of course, this is solvable by providing a line that says that this rule supercedes 211 in this respect. > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* Well, since I don’t feel that I am able to revise and restart voting, I guess we have to let this vote run its course and see what happens. Teach me to Propose without any input. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/455 "2003-08-22T01:21:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _Rule 111:_ > If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote. I’m not sure what this says, but it could be read as that if someone points out ambiguity you have the option of rewriting and _then_calling to vote. But I’m not sure. In f2f, obviously, you can say ‘hold on a tick’ if someone’s about to vote, which you can’t do here. ---
**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 22, 2003, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/456 "2003-08-22T01:46:29Z")
Per Rule 111, I am submitting an amendment to Prop 305: **Amended** Proposal 305: To change the text of Rule 203 to read as follows: A rule-change is considered adopted with a simple majority vote of all registered players. At the moment of a simple majority being reached, it is the Proposer’s decision, in eir sole discretion, whether to wait for the remaining players to vote, or to close the voting and continue with the game. **This rule shall supercede Rule 303.** _**(end of Amended Proposal)**_ Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/457 "2003-08-22T01:52:17Z")
Thanks. You didn’t address my question - are we just ignoring that? Can we make the votes already cast count? I suppose not ☹ If not, I vote yes again… ---
**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 22, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/458 "2003-08-22T03:11:38Z")
Shade, " A rule-change is considered adopted with a simple majority vote of all registered players [. . .]" Thus it must be more than half of everyone registered (you can’t go “ok, three people voted, 2:1, so vote’s over!”) Is that the question? I had the same thought at first and then realized that this implicitly gives the answer. I vote for the amended version, if the voting is continuing. ---
**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 22, 2003, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/459 "2003-08-22T03:28:25Z")
Sorry, **Shade** , for skipping over your question. I was all caught up in trying to figure if I could actually have the authority to re-start voting. Yes, a ‘simple majority’ (to me) is one person more than half the total of people. Therefore, if we have 16 players (as we do now) a simple majority would be nine. If we had 17 players, a simple majority would also be nine. At 18 players, a simple majority would be 10. This is my interpretation, at least. ---
**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 22, 2003, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/460 "2003-08-22T03:38:17Z")
I think it’s a move forward. I vote yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=24)