# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/601 "2003-09-25T06:14:11Z")
NO on Prop 309. ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/602 "2003-09-25T12:26:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Little Nemo \* > \*\*I’ve noticed another problem that could arise from Rule 308. A rule can only be passed if “majority of the eligible voters at the time the rule-change was proposed” vote on it. > > As an example, at the moment it appears that Proposal 309 is going to receive four votes. This means that when Proposal 310 is made, only Brahesilver, MarkofT, Spurious George, and myself will be eligible voters. So in order for 310 to pass, at least three of the us will have to vote on it. > > This means that regardless of how popular 310 is and how many votes it receives in its favor, any two of us can effectively veto it by simply refusing to cast a vote. > > Getting back to a point I made in a previous post, I think Rule 308 should be amended and the words “majority of the eligible voters at the time the rule-change was proposed” should be changed to “majority of players”. I feel this language will change the letter of this rule to what its intent actually was. \*\* With the new language you mention then nothing could be passed because the number of eligible players would be less then the majority of players. If you don’t like the bit about “at the time the rule-change was proposed” then it would be best to make it “majority of the eligible voters for the current proposal”. This would allow for propsals to pass without needing most of the players available. The way I read the current rule 308 is that for proposal 310, there would be 4 votes that count. Anyone outside of those 4 votes would not count but since they voted they would be eligible for voting on 311. ---
**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:** [September 25, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/603 "2003-09-25T15:49:47Z")
> [@](#): > > The way I read the current rule 308 is that for proposal 310, there would be 4 votes that count. Anyone outside of those 4 votes would not count but since they voted they would be eligible for voting on 311. Keep in mind that any temporarily ineligible player can restore his eligibility simply by voting. Under the current rules, a rule requires two things to be passed. One is a majority of yes votes; everyone seems to be in agreement on that. The other is that a sufficiently large quorum votes on it. This is where I see problems. We currently have, I believe, thirteen active players. Any player who votes on the current proposal is an eligible voter at the start of the next proposal. In the two turns since this went into effect, we’ve had five voters eligible at the start of the next turns. So in order to have a quorum, three of the five eligible voters had to have voted in the current turn. In point of fact, only two of those players voted on the last proposal. Proposal 309 wouldn’t have passed even if everyone who voted on it voted yes to it. You suggested that the rule be modified to being “a majority of the eligible players for the current proposal”. But keep in mind that every player who votes is an eligible player and every player who deosn’t vote is ineligible. So regardless of whether one person or thirteen people votes on a proposal, every proposal is voted on by 100% of the eligible voters for the current proposal. As I wrote before, the current rules give an unintended veto power to the eligible voters. Five of us voted on Proposal 309. This means that three of us can stop Proposal 310 by refusing to vote, even if all ten of the other players vote in favor of it. My proposal is that we eliminate a quorum based on the changing amount of eligible voters. If we require a majority of players, we will maintain a constant number and there will be no special status for players who voted on the previous proposal. ---
**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 25, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/604 "2003-09-25T20:49:45Z")
And I really thought I had voted on 309. I really need to pay more attention. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Treviathan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/838e76/32.png) [@Treviathan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treviathan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/605 "2003-09-25T21:12:16Z")
Are we not sending these proposals out via e-mail anymore? ---
**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 25, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/606 "2003-09-25T22:16:24Z")
Well, **zev** had been sending them out, but he isn’t here at the moment. ---
**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:** [September 27, 2003, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/607 "2003-09-27T06:42:07Z")
Should we sent Davidm an email to let him know it’s his turn? He hasn’t posted on this thread in quite a while. Ironically his last post discussed rules on players losing their chance to make a proposal. ---
**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 27, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/608 "2003-09-27T15:25:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Little Nemo \* > \*\*Should we sent Davidm an email to let him know it’s his turn? \*\* Done. ---
**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:** [September 28, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/609 "2003-09-28T21:47:54Z")
Jonmarzie, if you’re reading this, you might want to start warming up in the bullpen. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2003, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/610 "2003-10-03T04:51:23Z")
Maybe my proposal will be that everyone who votes in favor of my proposal will be awarded 100 points and the game will be declared over. ---
**Author:** ![BraheSilver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@BraheSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraheSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/611 "2003-10-03T05:57:08Z")
I’d vote for that. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/612 "2003-10-03T16:02:07Z")
It’s 200 points to win, innit? And I think that’s an immutable rule. So the game would end with no actual victor (s). ---
**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:** [October 3, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/613 "2003-10-03T17:55:09Z")
Here’s our current status. BraheSilver, iampunha, MarkofT, Mikie, Spurious George, TJdude825, Treviathan, and myself are still active in the game. Capybara, Johnny Bravo, and zev\_steinhardt have withdrawn. Achernar, davidm, and Jonmarzie haven’t officially withdrawn but are no longer actively posting. Shade said he was going away for “a few days” five weeks ago and never returned. He left a proxy vote when he left, but the legality of that is questionable and his proxy votes haven’t been counted. The last active proposal was put forth by MarkofT on 9-22 at 8:36 am. Four of us voted on it: BraheSilver, MarkofT, Spurious George, and myself. We’re the currently eligible players and three of us need to vote on the next proposal for it to pass. Davidm has not been posting and missed his 9-29 deadline for submitting his proposal. Jonmarzie has not been posting and missed his deadline this morning for submitting his proposal. It’s now my turn and I have until Tuesday, Oct 7, 8:39 am to submit a proposal. I’m open to suggestions, including putting an official end to the game if the interest is no longer there. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/614 "2003-10-03T18:17:22Z")
Apologies people, I kind of forgot about this, I’ve been busy. I think it’s best if I officially withdraw. Maybe another time. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2003, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/615 "2003-10-06T01:33:12Z")
Okay, here’s my suggested proposal. Comments welcomed. I’ll post the offical proposal tomorrow. Rule 310 - All players who vote in favor of this proposed rule will receive the number of points which makes their total points equal to 200. All points will be added at the same time and all players having a total of 200 points will be tied for victory and the game will be ended. This rule supersedes Rule 202. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2003, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/616 "2003-10-06T04:49:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Little Nemo \* > Achernar, davidm, and Jonmarzie haven’t officially withdrawn but are no longer actively posting. Okay, sorry, I’ll pay close attention this turn. ---
**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:** [October 6, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/617 "2003-10-06T05:33:10Z")
Okay. I vote **yes** on Proposal 310. Perhaps another time. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![BraheSilver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@BraheSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BraheSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/618 "2003-10-07T00:01:41Z")
If the official proposal is the same as has been stated, then I’m voting YES on 310. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2003, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/619 "2003-10-07T02:08:54Z")
Okay, consider it proposed as written and this a call for votes. For the record, I’m voting yes. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2003, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/620 "2003-10-08T15:04:19Z")
We’ve got two of the four eligible voters for a majority (plus three yes votes overall). We need a vote from MarkofT or Spurious George. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=32)