# 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:** 6
**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 12, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/101 "2003-08-12T14:40:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > \*\*Yes, but rule 105 states:And 105 is immutable which, according to rule 110, means it takes precedence over 203 which is merely mutable. \*\* Technically true. But it doesn’t really matter how the other people vote, the proposal is defeated anyway. Much like in law, sometimes “good enough” is left alone. For example, sometimes overseas ballots will not be counted in an election if it is clear that even if all the overseas ballots were to go to a losing candidate it wouldn’t change the outcome. 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 12, 2003, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/102 "2003-08-12T14:45:23Z")
Yes, I just noticed the same problem that DavidM did-- THANKS, Nemo! Pffft. Does the fact that 301 was just defeated mean that no vote to make 105 mutable in the future is possible? ---
**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 12, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/103 "2003-08-12T14:48:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*Technically true. But it doesn’t really matter how the other people vote, the proposal is defeated anyway. > > Much like in law, sometimes “good enough” is left alone. For example, sometimes overseas ballots will not be counted in an election if it is clear that even if all the overseas ballots were to go to a losing candidate it wouldn’t change the outcome. > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* I hate to be a nitpicker but I have to disagree with this. The point isn’t whether or not it would make a difference to the passage of the rule. The point is whether or not everyone has participated in the vote, which at the present time **is required by the rules.** If we start ignoring the stated rules for the sake of convenience then the whole game becomes pointless. I’m afraid that I’m going to have to ask for a judgement on this. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/104 "2003-08-12T14:49:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scuba\_Ben \* > So the main lesson here is that if you’re unsure about something, call for Judgment and establish a precedent. Precedent? What about this little excerpt from rule 212? I don’t think there’s such a thing as precedent here. > [@](#): > > 212… New Judges are not bound by the decisions of old Judges… ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/105 "2003-08-12T14:53:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > I hate to be a nitpicker but I have to disagree with this. The point isn’t whether or not it would make a difference to the passage of the rule. The point is whether or not everyone has participated in the vote, which at the present time **is required by the rules.** If we start ignoring the stated rules for the sake of convenience then the whole game becomes pointless. I’m afraid that I’m going to have to ask for a judgement on this. As Judge, I agree with **davidm**. As the rules stand now, we can’t proceed with the next turn until everyone has voted. However, as per rule 212, I may only pass Judgment on disagreements that “affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked.” Therefore, I can’t retroactively call for votes from last round. But for _this_ round, we can’t proceed until everyone has voted. ---
**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 12, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/106 "2003-08-12T14:55:58Z")
I’m sorry, **BraheSilver** , I think I’m going to have to vote NO on 302. I think that a player should be able to propose a rule, hold his/her vote until s/he gets other player’s inputand then change his/her mind after a debate on the matter stating to emself “Boy, that was stupid. What was I thinking?” 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 12, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/107 "2003-08-12T14:58:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*As Judge, I agree with **davidm**. As the rules stand now, we can’t proceed with the next turn until everyone has voted. However, as per rule 212, I may only pass Judgment on disagreements that “affect the completion of the turn in which Judgment was invoked.” Therefore, I can’t retroactively call for votes from last round. But for _this_ round, we can’t proceed until everyone has voted. \*\* But we’re actually still in the “last” round, since that round never legally completed. Just because Zev said it was over doesn’t make it so. He’s not dictator or anything. And you wouldn’t be retroactively calling for votes. Voting was already called for, but never completed. ---
**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 12, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/108 "2003-08-12T14:59:22Z")
OK, then. Only one player has not voted on 301. That is **Soup\_du\_jour**. I will contact em promptly to get his/her vote. After that, can we proceed to 302 as it stands (defeated), or should **BraheSilver** put forth a new 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 12, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/109 "2003-08-12T15:01:30Z")
We shouldn’t be voting on 302 yet because I called for a judgement. Rule 212 states: > [@](#): > > …When Judgment has been invoked, the next player may not begin his or her turn without the consent of a majority of the other players… ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/110 "2003-08-12T15:02:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidm \* > But we’re actually still in the “last” round, since that round never legally completed. Just because Zev said it was over doesn’t make it so. I disagree. I call for a Judgment. As Judge, I agree with myself. We’re still in round 302. If you wish to override this, you need a majority vote. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/111 "2003-08-12T15:05:19Z")
Oh, I’m sorry. You need a unanimous vote. ---
**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 12, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/112 "2003-08-12T15:07:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*I disagree. I call for a Judgment. As Judge, I agree with myself. We’re still in round 302. If you wish to override this, you need a majority vote. \*\* No argument from me then. But please note my post re rule 212. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/113 "2003-08-12T15:09:59Z")
What do you suppose that means? **iampunha** can’t start the next round until we get a majority consent? Or **BraheSilver** can’t continue without majority consent? Either way, I consent. ---
**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 12, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/114 "2003-08-12T15:12:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*What do you suppose that means? **iampunha** can’t start the next round until we get a majority consent? Or **BraheSilver** can’t continue without majority consent? Either way, I consent. \*\* It means that rule 302 can’t be proposed until we get majority consent (IMHO, not being a judge…). I also consent. ---
**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 12, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/115 "2003-08-12T15:12:44Z")
OK, then, we have a bit of a problem, because if a single player decides to quit, dies (God forbid), etc., the game can’t go on. However, there may be a way out. Rule 105 states that every player “must vote” on every proposal. In the same vein, I must always cross at the crosswalk. That doesn’t mean that I always do and even if I get a ticket, the cop isn’t going to send me back across the street again. IOW, my crossing, though illegal, is a _fait accompli_. That being said, we can still maintain the spirit of 105, but yet get around this problem. That’s simply by having someone (on their turn – it’s too late for this turn) propose a “penalty” system for people who don’t vote in a certain time frame. Just a suggestion, mind you, because it’s not my turn next. 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 12, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/116 "2003-08-12T15:18:30Z")
I just realized that **Achernar** isn’t the legal judge for determining the validity of the vote on rule 301 since he proposed rule 301. The judge should be… hmm… **PoignantSod**? (I think…) ---
**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 12, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/117 "2003-08-12T15:20:27Z")
I have another question. If we’re still in the first round, doesn’t that make me the Judge since I was the “preceeding player” (being last alphabetically) when the round started. And since it’s not over, am I not still Judge? Or am I reading that wrong? 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 12, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/118 "2003-08-12T15:21:28Z")
You beat me to it by two minutes, **davidm** … 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 12, 2003, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/119 "2003-08-12T15:23:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*I have another question. If we’re still in the first round, doesn’t that make me the Judge since I was the “preceeding player” (being last alphabetically) when the round started. And since it’s not over, am I not still Judge? Or am I reading that wrong? > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* I guess if the other players below you weren’t added till later then you’re correct. You are the judge. ---
**Author:** ![MarkofT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@MarkofT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarkofT)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/120 "2003-08-12T15:24:53Z")
Or perhaps the next person could propose defining “participation” to mean something along the lines of failing to vote withing x hours/days of a proposal is a vote to abstain. Oh…and I voted for 302 and I consent to getting on with the game. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=7)