# 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:** 8
**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, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/141 "2003-08-12T16:13:17Z")
By the way, \*if[/if] we are moving on, then I vote NO for 302. ---
**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, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/142 "2003-08-12T16:13:43Z")
OK, can we all agree then that 301 is defeated, 302 is defeated and that if we have a majority giving consent the game can go on? Zev Steinhardt ---
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/143 "2003-08-12T16:14:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > Not necessarily. Just because [105] says that all players must vote that doesn’t mean that the turn can’t end until all players vote. See my earlier point re: jaywalking. Yeah, this is up to the Judge for that round. If that Judge is me, that jaywalking argument won’t work, but hopefully, until we can get this fixed, people interpret the rules differently than I do. ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/144 "2003-08-12T16:17:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > OK, can we all agree then that 301 is defeated, 302 is defeated and that if we have a majority giving consent the game can go on? As I see it, we don’t need _everyone_ to agree on this. We just need one person to agree with me. 😉 I’m going to bed soon, and when that happens, I will gladly accept whatever state the game appears to be in when I get back, even if it doesn’t coincide with my interpretation of the rules… ---
**Author:** ![Scuba\_Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Scuba\_Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scuba_Ben)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/145 "2003-08-12T16:21:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Achernar \* > \*\*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… You’re quite right, **Achernar** , that is the rule of your game. CFJs do not need to respect precedent as long as the quoted clause of R212 remains in effect. I apologize for thinking in terms of Agora (where we do respect precedent). I hope everybody’s having fun discussing the game-start mechanics and early proposals. That’s what Nomic is all about. Until someone changes the point of the game, of course. ---
**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, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/146 "2003-08-12T16:23:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*Not necessarily. Just because it says that all players must vote that doesn’t mean that the turn can’t end until all players vote. See my earlier point re: jaywalking. > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* Hmm… I can’t find the jaywalking post but I think I understand your point, and I disagree. By that principle we could pass rules allowing people to violate an immutable rule if they’re willing to accept a penalty. This kills the whole spirit of mutable versus immutable rules. The point of immutable rules is that it takes 2 votes to change them. IMHO it was designed this way to add some stability to the game. IMHO your idea violates original intent. I think it could make it easier for a determined clique to hijack the game. ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/147 "2003-08-12T16:26:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scuba\_Ben \* > You’re quite right, **Achernar** , that is the rule of your game. CFJs do not need to respect precedent as long as the quoted clause of R212 remains in effect. I apologize for thinking in terms of Agora (where we do respect precedent). For the record, I think that changing 212 so that Judges **do** respect precent would be a wonderful proposal. ---
**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 12, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/148 "2003-08-12T16:26:26Z")
How about we take a break? Can everyone agree with the following? That we all accept the conditions of Zev’s acclimation of 8-10, including the withdrawal of his rule 301, the 12:00 8-11 starting time, and the starting set of players. That Achernar was the first player to have a turn and that his rule 301 is still on the table until every player then active has voted on it. (This is clearly stated in the rules.) That we ask everyone to vote on rule 301 so we can finish the first turn. That because Achernar’s rule change is still on the table, Brahesilver’s rule change is moot and withdrawn. That we start discussing needed rule changes that will avoid these log jams. Hopefully we can reach a consensus and Brahesilver can submit the proposed change. ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/149 "2003-08-12T16:26:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*OK, can we all agree then that 301 is defeated, 302 is defeated and that if we have a majority giving consent the game can go on? > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* Has _everyone_ voted on 302? Ouch! Stop hitting me… ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/150 "2003-08-12T16:33:08Z")
Right. I’m going to vote NO on prop 302 (BraheSilver’s about not voting against your own prop) and open the floor to suggestions from (especially Achernar and Zev) those involved here (i.e. either playing in the game and/or with knowledge of the game otherwise) for what my proposal should be. I’m not quite sure how to word what needs to be put into effect … especially since I don’t quite understand what exactly it is;) [sub]Hey, YOU try compressing the above 40-ish posts on this issue into something that even makes sense![/sub] ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/151 "2003-08-12T16:33:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Little Nemo \* > \*\*How about we take a break? Can everyone agree with the following? > > That we all accept the conditions of Zev’s acclimation of 8-10, including the withdrawal of his rule 301, the 12:00 8-11 starting time, and the starting set of players. > > That Achernar was the first player to have a turn and that his rule 301 is still on the table until every player then active has voted on it. (This is clearly stated in the rules.) > > That we ask everyone to vote on rule 301 so we can finish the first turn. > > That because Achernar’s rule change is still on the table, Brahesilver’s rule change is moot and withdrawn. > > That we start discussing needed rule changes that will avoid these log jams. Hopefully we can reach a consensus and Brahesilver can submit the proposed change. \*\* This sounds reasonable to me. But will you PLEASE agree to transmuting 105 so that we can then remove the unanimous vote requirement? ---
**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, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/152 "2003-08-12T16:36:18Z")
**iampunha** , I suggest you ask **Little Nemo** what sort of proposition he’ll vote _for_. Otherwise it’s not going to pass. (Not that I’m bitter. ;)) ---
**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, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/153 "2003-08-12T16:38:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*Right. I’m going to vote NO on prop 302 (BraheSilver’s about not voting against your own prop) and open the floor to suggestions from (especially Achernar and Zev) those involved here (i.e. either playing in the game and/or with knowledge of the game otherwise) for what my proposal should be. I’m not quite sure how to word what needs to be put into effect … especially since I don’t quite understand what exactly it is;) > > [sub]Hey, YOU try compressing the above 40-ish posts on this issue into something that even makes sense![/sub] \*\* PLEASE propose the transmutation of 105 and PLEASE everybody vote YES. ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/154 "2003-08-12T16:42:13Z")
Maybe we should have started with the [Pure Nomic Ruleset](http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/PureNomicRuleset) 😃 ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/155 "2003-08-12T16:45:41Z")
Yes, someone please propose it to be mutable (105), mutate it somehow, and bring me the head of Soup du Jour on a platter. I like that pure nomic ruleset. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/156 "2003-08-12T16:50:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capybara \* > \*\*…I like that pure nomic ruleset. \*\* Then check out the [Monsyllabic Ruleset](http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/MonosyllabicNomicVariant) ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/157 "2003-08-12T16:58:16Z")
OK, if we can agree that 301 is still on the table AND that Little Nemo (by his own admission) would have voted for 301, since the matter is still up for discussion, he can vote YES on 301, we can hunt down **Soup du jour** and let **BraheSilver** propose something else. How does that sound? Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/158 "2003-08-12T17:08:41Z")
I agree. Let’s please get the game moving. ---
**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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/159 "2003-08-12T17:11:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*OK, if we can agree that 301 is still on the table AND that Little Nemo (by his own admission) would have voted for 301, since the matter is still up for discussion, he can vote YES on 301, we can hunt down **Soup du jour** and let **BraheSilver** propose something else. How does that sound? > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* Fine with me. I’m almost sorry I brought the whole thing up. We should think about all working together to craft a carefully worded _suggested_ proposal for **BraheSilver** to make that removes the unanimity requirement and sets a clearly defined time limit on voting. ---
**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, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142/160 "2003-08-12T17:12:30Z")
Agree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-for-a-game-of-nomic/194142.md?page=9)