Be Excellent To Each Other

Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.


—Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, p. 362.

Nomic actually refers to a large number of games based on the initial ruleset laid out by Peter Suber in his book The Paradox of Self-Amendment. (The ruleset was actually first published in Douglas Hofstadter's column Metamagical Themas in Scientific American in June 1982.[2] The column discussed Suber's then-upcoming book, which was published some years later.) The game is in some ways modeled on modern government systems, and demonstrates that in any such system where rule-changes are possible, a situation may arise in which the resulting laws are contradictory or insufficient to determine what is in fact legal. Because the game models (and exposes conceptual questions about) a legal system and the problems of legal interpretation, it is named after νόμος (nomos), Greek for "law".

While the victory condition in Suber's initial ruleset is the accumulation of 100 points by the roll of a die, he once said that "this rule is deliberately boring so that players will quickly amend it to please themselves."[3] Players can change the rules to such a degree that points can become irrelevant in favor of a true currency, or make victory an unimportant concern. Any rule in the game, including the rules specifying the criteria for winning and even the rule that rules must be obeyed, can be changed. Any loophole in the ruleset, however, may allow the first player to discover it the chance to pull a "scam" and modify the rules to win the game. Complicating this process is the fact that Suber's initial ruleset allows for the appointment of judges to preside over issues of rule interpretation.

105. Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes.

We may be waiting a while.

Persons in this game shall have a status.

A player is a person with player status.

Player status shall be immediately conferred upon any person by posting in the game. Player status shall be revoked if a person has not posted since 12:00 AM (Seattle time) the previous calendar day; such a person shall be granted the status of citizen. The revocation of player status is not necessarily permanent.

Actions (including, but not limited to, votes, proposals, and invocations) taken by a player shall remain valid even if that player's status subsequently changes. Futhermore, variables associated with a player (including, but not limited to, score) shall be associated with the person regardless of status.

Every player is an eligible voter.

Votes on rule-changes shall conclude when either of these conditions are met: (1) all eligible voters have voted on the rule-change, or (2) the vote has been in progress since 12:00 AM (Seattle time) the previous calendar day and at least three eligible voters have voted on the rule-change.

328.cccxxviii
There exists within this game a sub-game called Story Time.

The arbiter of this sub-game (hereafter “Arbiter") shall settle all questions arising from the sub-game. The Arbiter only has jurisdiction over the sub-game and may not use his or her powers as Arbiter to affect anything outside the sub-game except as explicitly authorized by this rule. Gothad is to be the sole Arbiter for this sub-game.

Each time a player's plebiscite changes from Active to Inactive (per cci), that player may submit a sentence (hereafter "Sentence") to be appended to the current story. In order for the player's submission to be valid, the following conditions must be met: (1) the player's submission must made within 24 hours of his or her plebiscite becoming Inactive; (2) the Sentence must be in English; (3) the Sentence must be posted to a thread designated by the Arbiter; (4) the Sentence must be approved by the Arbiter. If the player's submission is valid, he or she shall be awarded 5 points.

The Arbiter is obligated to approve submissions within 24 hours of the submission being posted. Approval shall be expressed by the Arbiter appending the Sentence to the story. Each time the Arbiter refuses or otherwise fails to approve a player's submission, the Arbiter shall lose 2 points.

The Arbiter of this sub-game shall be responsible for designating and maintaining a thread (separate from the submission thread) containing the entirety of the current story. The Arbiter may alter the story, either of his or her own volition or at the request of a player, to correct grammatical and spelling errors or to insert paragraph breaks. The Arbiter decides when a story is complete and may title completed stories.

I love MafiaScum at the cottage, but I've become bored to tears with it online. I'd be happy to give this a go.

A game made entirely of confusing and non-sensual rules, intended to confuse and confound?

I love MafiaScum at the cottage, but I've become bored to tears with it online. I'd be happy to give this a go.

I'm sure when you play it, this is fun, but by Christ it looks dull!

I've known of Nomic for years, as the constitutional geek in me loves the idea of a game based around how to structure lawmaking, but I could never find people to play it with (and not sure I'd have the patience for an online version)

I'll bring a 'FLUXX' deck along to the next cottage meet. Rather than debate and vote on rule changes you just arbitrarily play a card. Some love the game, others hate it with a vengeance, mostly because they think too hard about it when it's really a fun timewaster.

Avoid the later versions that introduce some crappy 'creepers' which just serve to confuse and annoy, however.

WTF?!

It reads like Page 66284 Subsection 12 Paragraph 2b.4 of a Parliamentary Bill.

And you find that boring? I thought you were into politics.