# 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:** 27
**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 26, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/521 "2003-08-26T15:49:39Z")
I vote Yes on 306. Not that it matters, except for point value. ---
**Author:** ![Treviathan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/838e76/32.png) [@Treviathan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treviathan)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/522 "2003-08-26T20:55:51Z")
Thanks, **Little Nemo** and **davidm** , for the further suggestions. **davidm** , I like your second paragraph, but I’ve always taken “submitting a proposal” to basically mean “call for votes” since it seems that submitting a proposal implies that it’s therefore ready to be voted on. Am I right here? Perhaps we could say “has _put a proposal forth for discussion_ but has not called for a vote within n hours after the commencement of discussion”? That would limit the debate period, though. Instead, if we allowed, say 96 hours between the last player voting on the previous proposal and the submission of the new proposal, that would give us _minimum_ four days for debate. That period could even be longer if the proposal was tentatively brought up before voting had closed on the prior proposal. Sort of like what I’m doing with this one, I guess. Here’s what I’m thinking for the variables: x (time waiting for a vote) = 72 hours y (time waiting for a proposal) = 96 hours Thoughts? ---
**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 26, 2003, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/523 "2003-08-26T22:18:19Z")
At first, I had reservations about tying the last person voting on the prior proposal and the closing of votes for the next proposal. However, the way **Treviathan** describes it above works for me. ---
**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 28, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/524 "2003-08-28T04:25:56Z")
Bumping this back to the front page. ---
**Author:** ![BraheSilver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@BraheSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraheSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/525 "2003-08-28T04:38:40Z")
I realize I haven’t yoted for this current one, and since it won’t make a difference anyway, I vote NO. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2003, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/526 "2003-08-28T07:26:45Z")
I vote YES on 306. ---
**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 28, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/527 "2003-08-28T14:43:06Z")
We’re still waiting for two votes on 306 before proceeding. Zev Steinhardt ---
**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 29, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/528 "2003-08-29T13:32:34Z")
Still waiting on one vote… Zev Steinhardt ---
**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 29, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/529 "2003-08-29T15:01:39Z")
I’m moving this weekend and won’t be on line until about next Wednesday or Thursday. May I elect to have an in absentia ‘yes’ vote counted for whatever comes up meanwhile? I figure since things still need to be unanimous to pass, I will trust the majority. ---
**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 29, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/530 "2003-08-29T15:10:56Z")
I’m wondering if we’re not addressing this problem in the wrong way. Maybe instead of defining who has to vote and by how many votes a proposal has to recieve to go on, maybe instead we just “force” votes. For example, suppose we allow that after a proposal has been proposed, players have X hours to cast their votes. Any player who does not cast his vote by then is said to have cast an “ABSTAIN” vote which is not counted for purposes of determining a majority or uninamity. We could also require a minimum percentage of votes (a quorom) in order for any measure to pass. Furthermore, we can determine that after Y number of “ABSTAIN” votes, the player is dropped from the list of active players. Lastly, we could define the close of voting as when X hours have passed or when the last vote is received. This gives us some flexibility: a. It allows people time to debate and change thier votes if they want to (up to the close of voting). b. It will prevent any single player (or even the majority) from holding us up in terms of voting on proposals. c. It will prevent long-term absentee players from holding us up too (because eventually they’ll be dropped). Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Treviathan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/838e76/32.png) [@Treviathan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treviathan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/531 "2003-08-29T22:36:47Z")
All right, I think I’ve got my proposal hammered out. Like **capybara** I’m moving this weekend, too, but I should be able to post it sometime Saturday (assuming we’ve heard from **MarkofT** by then). Please place your fingers on the voting buzzers. ---
**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 30, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/532 "2003-08-30T08:01:46Z")
How about a straw poll first? Is there anyone who plans on voting against Treviathan’s proposal? And if so, what are your objections? ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/533 "2003-08-30T15:56:46Z")
I vote yes on 306. I had thought I would have better net access this weekend. Bleh. BTW, can we make a rule that affects outside the game? Something like “All players are hencefore banned from utilizing UHaul.” It will be a good thing. Trust me. ---
**Author:** ![Treviathan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/838e76/32.png) [@Treviathan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treviathan)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/534 "2003-08-31T00:12:00Z")
Okay, since we’ve heard from the last remaining voter, I’d like to propose the following for **Rule 307** : **Eligibility:** “A player becomes ineligible to vote for the current proposal under all circumstances if that player does not vote within **72** 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 72 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 officially submit his/her proposal (by declaring a call for votes) within **96** 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 96 hours to make his/her new proposal (commencing at the time the previous player is declared ineligible).” “This rule supercedes Rule 303 (formerly Rule 105) where they conflict.” (Cue campaign speech) I think we need some sort of framework in place in case someone drops out of the game. If there’s disagreement on the time limits I’ve proposed, could we perhaps amend them later and not strike down this much-needed rule? Oh, and **Zev** , I think that aside from your quorum suggestion we’re pretty much on the same track. Being declared “ineligible” is sort of like having an “abstain” as your default vote, right? ---
**Author:** ![BraheSilver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@BraheSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraheSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2003, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/535 "2003-08-31T00:48:40Z")
I like **Leviathan** ’s proposal. I vote YES on 307. re: “ineligibile” vs. “abstain” I think that declaring a voter ineligible would make a difference to scoring, since a proposer’s score would be increased by ```auto # yes instead of # yes yes + no yes + no + abstain ``` ---
**Author:** ![BraheSilver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@BraheSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraheSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/536 "2003-08-31T00:51:29Z")
Rather, that fraction is applied to the number obtained via rule 202. anyway, my point is that player’s scores will be greater by declaring non-voters ineligible instead of having votes for abstention. ---
**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 31, 2003, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/537 "2003-08-31T13:43:01Z")
Voting yes on 307. C’mon people, let’s all work together and enact a new rule. ---
**Author:** ![TJdude825](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@TJdude825](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJdude825)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/538 "2003-08-31T20:08:35Z")
I agree, Little Nemo. I’ll vote yes. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/539 "2003-09-01T06:31:15Z")
I vote YES on 307. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/540 "2003-09-01T06:38:30Z")
I vote YES on 307. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=28)