# 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:** 26
**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 25, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/501 "2003-08-25T16:10:37Z")
[Regis Philbin voice] Is that your final proposal? 🙂 [/Regis Philbin voice] Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![TJdude825](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@TJdude825](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJdude825)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/502 "2003-08-25T16:11:22Z")
Oh, and I vote yes on my 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 25, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/503 "2003-08-25T16:44:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TJdude825 \* > \*\*Ok, if you don’t want a simple majority, how about two-thirds? > > Proposal 306: > > \*\*The text of Rule 203 changes to: > > A rule-change is considered adopted if at least two-thirds of the current players vote YES. Once the necessary two-thirds majority is reached, the Proposer has the option of closing the vote, or allowing the players who haven’t voted to vote. This rule supercedes Rule 303.\*\* \*\* What if two-thirds have voted NO, and one or more players never show up? We’ll be stuck. This doesn’t solve the original problem. The first sentence should probably read something like: _A rule-change is considered adopted or rejected if at least two-thirds of the current players vote YES or NO respectively._ Even then we could get stuck if more then a third of the players drop out of the game. We could address that later by making a rule giving conditions for totally dropping a player. ---
**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 25, 2003, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/504 "2003-08-25T16:50:24Z")
Ok, I vote yes on 306. ---
**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 25, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/505 "2003-08-25T17:00:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > \*\*What if two-thirds have voted NO, and one or more players never show up? We’ll be stuck. This doesn’t solve the original problem. The first sentence should probably read something like: > > _A rule-change is considered adopted or rejected if at least two-thirds of the current players vote YES or NO respectively._ > > Even then we could get stuck if more then a third of the players drop out of the game. We could address that later by making a rule giving conditions for totally dropping a player. \*\* I just realized that a vote has been called for. It doesn’t seem like there was a reasonable time allowed for debate (per rule 111) but I guess that’s they way it is. Because of the problem stated in my previous post, I’m going to have to vote NO. Sorry, but there’s no point in encacting a flawed proposal that will require immediate amendment. It’s better to just correct and re-propose it. Also, to add to my previous suggestion, I think we need to put a time limit on the voting. Otherwise one third plus one can forever hold up the game. ---
**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 25, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/506 "2003-08-25T17:10:51Z")
Also, we need to state that it supercedes 303 otherwise it’s meaningless. ---
**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 25, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/507 "2003-08-25T17:49:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > \*\*Also, we need to state that it supercedes 303 otherwise it’s meaningless. \*\* He did state that it supercedes 303. In any event, if a player wants to debate a proposal before putting it to a vote, he is certainly free to do so (I know that I intend to allow some comment on whatever it is I propose…) 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 25, 2003, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/508 "2003-08-25T18:07:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*He did state that it supercedes 303… > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* :smack: :smack: :smack: Sorry about that. But my other comment stands; we need to mention YES vs NO. ---
**Author:** ![Jonmarzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jonmarzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonmarzie)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/509 "2003-08-25T19:39:52Z")
I must vote **no** to 306 for the exact same reason I voted no for 305. Giving someone the ability to nix players’ voting ability is rather worrisome to me. I think I’ll vote no on anything that can allow someone to disallow another players’ vote. Time should do that. My right to vote shouldn’t be at the mercy of the majority. It should be at the mercy of time, of course. ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/510 "2003-08-25T20:12:24Z")
If you vote is “disallowed” it is too late for your vote to matter anyway as a simple majority has been reached either approving or disapproving the proposal. The only way this rule would get us into any trouble would be if someone should change their vote. ---
**Author:** ![Treviathan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/838e76/32.png) [@Treviathan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treviathan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/511 "2003-08-25T20:49:38Z")
Since I’m next, I’d like to put this tentative proposal (massive props to **davidm** for basically composing the first paragraph back on page 9) up for discussion: **Eligibility:** “A player becomes ineligible to vote for the current proposal under all circumstances if that player does not vote within _x_ 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 _x_ hour voting period. When that occurs, the vote is counted and they return to eligible status.” “If it is a player’s turn to make a proposal and the player does not call for votes on his/her proposal within _y_ hours after the final eligible player has submitted his/her vote on the previous proposal, then: (1) the proposing player’s turn is skipped for the current round, (2) he/she is rendered ineligible for voting according to the terms established in the previous paragraph, and (3) play proceeds to the next player, who has _y_ hours to make his/her new proposal (commencing at the time the previous player is declared ineligible).” “This proposal supercedes Rule(s) _z_ where they conflict.” **Discussion topics:** What should x, y, and z be? Is this too much to handle at once? Does paragraph two even make sense? (I’d be willing to jettison it if we think that delinquent proposers aren’t a problem yet, but I personally think that’s something we should be keeping in the back of our collective head.) Are there any big, glaring loopholes that I’m not seeing? What will the new fall colors be? Mauve? Orange? Burnt Sienna? I _reeeeaaalllly_ want to clear up the eligibility issue once and for all, so please, fire away. ---
**Author:** ![Jonmarzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jonmarzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonmarzie)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/512 "2003-08-25T21:48:22Z")
It sounds fine with me, as long as we can nail down the XYZ affair. The wording of the first paragraph seems to imply that you are ineligable to vote until you try to vote. :dubious: Wouldn’t it be easier to say that the guilty party is just ineligible for that round? ---
**Author:** ![Treviathan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/838e76/32.png) [@Treviathan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treviathan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/513 "2003-08-25T22:06:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonmarzie \* > \*\*The wording of the first paragraph seems to imply that you are ineligable to vote until you try to vote. :dubious: Wouldn’t it be easier to say that the guilty party is just ineligible for that round? \*\* Not sure what you mean here. The point of the proposal is to declare a player ineligible once he/she has missed the voting period. That way, if they’ve gone on vacation/fallen into a coma/just plain disappeared we dont have to wait for them each and every time. Of course, their eligibility would be _automatically restored_ once they vote again. If they were only ineligible for the current round, I don’t think that would solve anything. Or am I misunderstanding you? ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/514 "2003-08-25T23:51:56Z")
I’m away for a few days, until sunday. As it appears this is allowed, until then, I pre-vote ‘yes’ on everything, including 306. No; wait. If a proposal has had the number of votes it needs to pass (not counting mine), and I can change my vote, then I will change to ‘no.’ Else ‘yes’ as before. ---
**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 26, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/515 "2003-08-26T02:36:59Z")
NO on 306 ---
**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 26, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/516 "2003-08-26T02:48:27Z")
Well, we’re voting down the proposals a lot faster. I guess that’s progress. > [@](#): > > “If it is a player’s turn to make a proposal and the player does not call for votes on his/her proposal within y hours after the final eligible player has submitted his/her vote on the previous proposal, then: (1) the proposing player’s turn is skipped for the current round, (2) he/she is rendered ineligible for voting according to the terms established in the previous paragraph, and (3) play proceeds to the next player, who has y hours to make his/her new proposal (commencing at the time the previous player is declared ineligible).” If I’m understanding right, the problem you’re addressing here is the potential block if someone’s turn arrives and they’ve dropped out of the game. If so, I’d change the language from “the player does not call for votes” to “the player does not submit a proposal”. ---
**Author:** ![Jonmarzie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jonmarzie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonmarzie)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/517 "2003-08-26T04:06:15Z")
**Treviathan** , you have convinced me otherwise. I think I owe you a thanks. Yes, I can be pursuaded. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/518 "2003-08-26T05:35:40Z")
No on 306 (sorry, **zev** …my email inbox got filledup by spam faster’n it usually does). ---
**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 26, 2003, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/519 "2003-08-26T05:48:19Z")
For what it’s worth, I’m voting yes to 306. Again, not a perfect rule but better than what we have now. Could the people voting ‘no’ post a brief explanation of their reasons? This would help in the creation of more acceptable proposals. ---
**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 26, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/520 "2003-08-26T15:42:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Treviathan \* > … > **Eligibility:** > > “A player becomes ineligible to vote for the current proposal under all circumstances if that player does not vote within _x_ 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 _x_ hour voting period. When that occurs, the vote is counted and they return to eligible status.” > > “If it is a player’s turn to make a proposal and the player does not call for votes on his/her proposal within _y_ hours after the final eligible player has submitted his/her vote on the previous proposal, then: (1) the proposing player’s turn is skipped for the current round, (2) he/she is rendered ineligible for voting according to the terms established in the previous paragraph, and (3) play proceeds to the next player, who has _y_ hours to make his/her new proposal (commencing at the time the previous player is declared ineligible).” > > “This proposal supercedes Rule(s) _z_ where they conflict.” I like this. (Especially the first paragraph. 😃 ) We should modify it slightly per **Little Nemo’s** suggestion. The first part of the first sentence of the second paragraph should read something like: _"If it is a player’s turn to make a proposal and the player has not made a proposal within y hours after the final eligible player has submitted his/her vote on the previous proposal, or has submitted a proposal within that time period but has not called for a vote within n hours after that submission then:…_" [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=27)