BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Can we get the ‘upcoming event’s post back that the ruleset requires to exist?

Could I please be unidled as i have returned from my deep voyage into space.

Add this to the second bulleted list in Rule 1.5:

• The Olympian who proposed it has been Banned from the game.

Pie-is-square’s proposal, Help for younger olympians, is piling up since it is overwhelmingly Against, but cannot be failed because there is not quorum.

I was just wondering if there is some function I have to perform before my name will appear in the sidebar under active Olympians.  Or is it too late in this particular dynasty for me to become one?  I don’t mind waiting for the next to begin—sounds like it will be soon.  By the way, am I correct in understanding that there is a time limit on dynasties?  What is that limit?

Hello all! I am snowballinhell7001 and I will be joining your game. Thanks for making this awesome online Nomic.

Medals for the water baloon fight are out. They were:

*GOLD: Blognomic
*SILVER: Excalibur Homeland
*BRONZE: McNally

I still have an event left to do. There is that, then should be 5 more normal events, one big final event; and that is it!

Add to the rule Olympic Events:

Every time an Olympian competes in an event, e rolls a DICE100. If the roll is less then 5, e is injured during the event. While injured, e may often roll DICE20. If the roll is 15 or above, e is healed. Otherwise, e remains injured. While injured, e cannot participate in any events.

Upon the adoption of this proposal, Rule 2.11 “Act of Contrition” is repealed and any posted Requests for Forgiveness that, as of that time, have not yet resulted in the requesting Olympian’s having eir Popularity reset to zero (0) shall be of no further force or effect.

I exist.

I request forgiveness

After He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named skulked away, leaving a trail of loathsome slime behind him, the survivors picked up the pieces.

Proposed new dynastic rule:

The Coach may, in eir discretion, award TP or Popularity points to any one or more Olympians for cleaning up vandalism damage to the main blog page, the comments pages, the GNDT, the wiki, or other documents associated with Blognomic, provided that no more than twenty (20) TP in the aggregate and no more than ten (10) Popularity points in the aggregate may be awarded under this Rule.

Not only are “pie-is-square” and “james mullard” trolls, but IP logs confirm that they are the same individual.  That’s a big no-no (see last paragraph of Rule 1.2).  If this CfJ passes: “pie-is-square”, “james mullard”, and anyone else that IP logs confirm as being this same person are idled (with all of the in-game consequences thereof) and then banned from all future participation in blognomic.  The banning shall last until undone by a future CfJ.

I fell i have reached my teenage stage in my olympian life so this should help the children

As this proposal passes, rule 2.10 “Closing Ceremonies” shall be repealed.

The olympians entering primary sports school should get all the funding they need.

Those here for a brief period may have noticed some vandalism on the front page.  This has been deleted, will be deleted, and any further vandalism will result in bannination.

—Excalabur.
(Wow, here 20 minutes and I’m already throwing my weight around)

I’m back.  Can someone unidle me? 

Will finish reading the ruleset soon. 

Did you guys break anything important since I was here last.

Also, does someone care to tell me why my Homeland from Chronos’ Dynasty is playing in the Olympics?

I seem to have appeared on the list of Olympians, and have tried to train via the GNDT, but I seem to have not received a password for the GNDT. Should I have received a password for using the GNDT?

I request forgiveness.

I request forgiveness.

Announcing my arrival; new player, planning on being very confused.

I am a fan of Nomic and am very enthusiastic to find a web game in such an active state.

I’m interested in your game, so I’m announcing myself. But I’m slightly dubious about anyone who uses ridiculous words like ‘eir’ and other spivaks in their basic ruleset. The use of words like ‘they’ and ‘their’ to denote a single person of indeterminate sex goes back hundreds of years. There’s no need for a silly new word. It sort of makes me think that it’s populated by people who think its a good idea to make up unnessacary, inelegant and clumsy rules. While I’ve never played nomic before, that would seem to be something of a drawback.

Replace all instances of:

The oldest pending Proposal

in Rule 1.5 with

Any pending Proposal

Add to the end of the rule:

No Proposal may be either enacted or failed if it contains any reference to still-pending Proposals that would affect the function of the Proposal, or if any still-pending Proposals contain content that would affect the function of the Proposal.

I’ve done this twice before. The first time, I had some major problems. The second time, I fixed the problems but forgot to make it a proposal. This is functionally identical to the second one, but is actually a proposal.

Could people please stop posting stupid proposals and clogging up the page?

Tearfully addressing the press conference, the disgraced former champion admitted his past misconduct.

Add a new dynastic rule, entitled “Act of Contrition”, as follows:

At any time, any Olympian with a Popularity of less than zero may make a post to the Blog that states “I request forgiveness” (such post being called a “Request for Forgiveness.”  Any Olympian (other than the Olympian who posted the Request for Forgiveness) may post a comment to the Request for Forgiveness, and if such a comment contains the text “I forgive you” (or text having a substantially similar meaning in the discretion of the Coach) (such a comment being called a “Grant of Forgiveness”), then the Olympian who posted the Grant of Forgiveness is awarded either one (1) Popularity point or two (2) TP, as the Olympian chooses.  If three (3) or more Olympians post Grants of Forgiveness with respect to a particular Request for Forgiveness, then the Olympian who posted that Request for Forgiveness has eir Popularity reset to zero (0).  Any Olympian who posts a Request for Forgiveness (whether or not any Grants of Forgiveness are posted) may no longer attempt to Cheat under Rule 2.3.3 for the remainder of this Dynasty.

Replace all instances of

The oldest pending Proposal

in Rule 1.5 with

Any pending Proposal

Add this to the end of the Rule:

No Proposal may be either enacted or failed if it contains any reference to still-pending Proposals that would affect the function of the Proposal, or if any still-pending Proposals contain content that would affect the function of the Proposal.

The proposal by pie-is-square that I don’t want to name fully because it’s too long was vetoed by Clucky because pie apparently had more than two pending proposals. Only thing was, pie had voted against, and therefore self-killed, one of them. Clucky’s action was within the rules, as the s-ked proposal had not yet been admined, but it would have been had the oldest pending proposal rule not been in effect. It’s a better idea to allow an admin to admin any proposal that meets the criteria, so that s-ked and vetoed proposals can be admined and stop plugging up the queue.

There is already an penalty in place if you are inactive: You go Idle for not voting in a week. You lose all your TP’s if that happens.

I don’t think capping TPs at any value or penalizing people for not using TP’s, or for not competing, are good ideas.

On a side note, I’ve just refreshed the Most Recent Votes page. I’d be glad if someone else other than me could do that in a more regular way.

I’m sorry about not being active, but I still would like to have my TP’s just as they are. It’s a strategy, of sorts.

I finally finished volleyball. Medals were:

*GOLD: Excalibur Homeland
*SILVER: RandMcNally(went to McNally)
*BRONZE: Blognomic

accidental duplicate post deleted

This proposal, if adopted, will have the following effects:

Part 1:  The actions specified by this Part 1 will occur only once, simultaneously with the adoption of this proposal.
* All Olympians whose Attributes are exactly 2,2,2,2 are ejected from the Blognomic Team and, unless another Rule expressly requires or permits otherwise, those ejected Olympians will not be considered to be a part of any Team.
* All Olympians who have never signed up for any Event since the start of the current dynasty are ejected from the Blognomic Team.

Part 2: Add the following rule to the Ruleset:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Rules, in any reference in the Rules to the “average” of a statistic held by Olympians (such as, for example, the average total attributes of the Olympians), any Olympians who are not members of the Blognomic Team will be excluded for the purposes of determining that average.

Part 3: The GNDT will be appropriately advised so as to indicate, with respect to each Olympian, whether or not that Olympian is a member of the Blognomic Team.

Since this proposal will presumably sit in the queue for a while before being enacted or failed, it is my hope that it will spur some of the relatively inactive Olympians to get off their duffs before the hammer drops.

If the pending proposal “The Problem with Zombies” Passes, this proposal has no effect.

Otherwise the pending proposal “The Problem with Zombies” imemdiately passes - even if it has already failed.

The Problem with Zombies is that it is over, nooooooo. Damn Merlin.

I’m just noticing stuff in the GNDT log. When you give everyone training points, it’s 2 points each now.

Add to Rule 1.3;

The Title of a pending proposal cannot contain any of the following words;

Return,
Revenge,
Zombies.

Add to rule 2.3.2 (Training)

An Olympian can never have more training points than twice the average of eir attributes.

If at any time any tp changing effect would cause them to do so, then eir lowest attribute will be increased by 1 point automatically (in the event of a tie, the atribute listed first takes precidence), and the appropriate amount of TP deducted as if they had just trained that attribute.  This process is repeated untill they no longer exceed eir limit.

Any olympian who currently exceeds eir limit will have eir TP spent as if their TP had just changed when this proposal passes

Change both instances in rule 1.5, Enactment, of the following:

The oldest pending Proposal

to:

Any Proposal

The proposal by pie-is-square that I don’t want to name fully because it’s too long was vetoed by Clucky because pie apparently had more than two pending proposals. Only thing was, pie had voted against, and therefore self-killed, one of them. Clucky’s action was within the rules, as the s-ked proposal had not yet been admined, but it would have been had the oldest pending proposal rule not been in effect. It’s a better idea to allow an admin to admin any proposal that meets the criteria, so that s-ked and vetoed proposals can be admined and stop plugging up the queue.

If the proposal “For the Red in all of us” passes, this proposal does nothing.

Add the following after the first line of 2.3.2 Training.

TP is an integer value from 0 to 30. If an Olympians TP is ever increased above 30, it is set to 30. No action may be preformed that sets an Olympian’s TP below 0.

add a rule called Recycling that states:

If an Olympian has more TP than twice the sum of eir attributes, eir TP is taken from em and redistributed among the other Olympians so as to make every Olympian’s TP as equal as possible:

The Olympian’s TP is first taken from em and eir TP is set to 0. This TP is now redistributed:

    The Olympian(s) with the lowest TP receives one TP. This process is done as many times as possible.

    As soon as the amount of TP available is less than the number of Olympian’s who have the lowest amount of TP, the process stops, and the remaining TP is given back to the Olympian who had it taken from em.

This should give people who are playing a crack at all that TP that is just sitting unused. The Olympian who had the TP taken from them doesn’t end up with 0 though, if you’ll notice. E get as many points as if e started out with 0 TP, and e gets the remainder of the TP that didn’t divide nicely.

Medals for the Battle of Skills have been given out. They were

*GOLD: Doremi
*SILVER: Spikebrennan
*BRONZE: Klodistan

Add to Rule 2.3.2;

Often, if an Olympian has more Training Points than twice the average of eir attributes, eir Training Points shall be reduced by 1. If e still has more Training Points than twice the average of eir attributes, eir Training Points shall be reduced by 1 further point. Any Olympian may reduce eir own Training Points and/or other Olympians Training Points in this way if able.

If, on a certain day, no Olympian reduces the Training Points of any Olympian “X” - who has more Training Points than twice the average of eir attributes, then the rule is ignored that day for Olympian X.

It is nobody’s responsibility to reduce TP and there are no consequences if TP are not reduced.

Add to rule 2.3.2 (Training)

An Olympian can never have more training points than twice the average of eir attributes

If at any time any tp changing effect would cause them to do so, then eir lowest attribute will be increased by 1 point automatically (in the event of a tie, the atribute listed first takes precidence), and the appropriate amount of TP deducted as if they had just trained that attribute.  This process is repeated untill they no longer exceed eir limit.

Any olympian who currently exceeds eir limit will have eir TP spent as if their TP had just changed when this proposal passes.

Pie-is-square made a post called “Axioms”, which I read. At least Hix did to(because e commented on it). Now it is gone. I figure it was deleted.

If no Olympian has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed by its author; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset. The Admin processing an official post is allowed to append to the post to reflect its new status. Anything appended to a post in this way must be placed in the Admin field of the post, and the post’s Status must changed to reflect its status.

I’ll assume in good faith that either someone else accidentally nuked it, or pie-is-square killed it without being aware of this portion of the rules(e did self-kill it first).

Either way, I don’t think we can get it back, so I guess I’ll pretend that proposal was there, and veto any proposal that pie makes that would have been illegal if eir post had not been deleted.

edit: teehee oops. I was going to CfJ this, but then I realized that the rules were fairly clear on the matter, and so there wasn’t any need. But I forgot to remove the CfJ tag

As far as the Game is concerned, alethiophile is now an admin.  I request that a SuperAdmin convince EE that this is the case.  Feel free to delete this post afterwards (or at least unsticky it).

EDIT: I’m not a SuperAdmin, but it’s now taken care of. -Elias IX

Add new rule, “Teletubby Fitness”;

Each Olympian has got a Teletubby Fitness. Teletubby Fitness is a whole number between 0 and 20. An Olympians Teletubby Fitness is tracked by the GNDT’s column “Teletubby”. New Olympians start with a Teletubby Fitness of 12.

Right now, I don’t see this Dynasty ending anytime soon. Its kinda plodding along with events, but no one is close to winning. So I propose a fix to all that…

Add the following rule called “Closing ceremonies”

The closing ceremonies for the 2006/2007 Blognomic Olympic Games take place on Sunday, February 11th at 12:00 AM. If no Olympian has achieved victory by other means, the victor is determined as follows:

First, the total number of medals earned by each Olympian and the Blognomic team is added up. 3*(Golds) + 2*(Silvers) + 1*(Bronze) is totaled for each team, with Blognomic counting the medals earned by the Olympians in addition to the team medals earned. In order for an Olympian to win, Blognomic’s total must be greater than any of the other totals. If this is not true upon the start of the closing ceremonies, no Olympian achieves victory, all dynamistic rules are repelled and the game enters a meta dynasty.

If Blognomic’s total score is greater than each of the other teams total scores, the Olympian with the highest score(provided one exists) achieves victory. Score is defined the same as in rule 2.9, that is: three times eir Gold Medals, plus twice eir Silver Medals, plus eir Bronze Medals, all times eir Popularity Multiplier. Eir Popularity Multiplier is 1/2 if e is Notorious, 3/4 if e is Unpopular but not Notorious, 2 if e is Star, 3/2 if e is Popular but not Star, and 1 if no other multiplier applies. If two or more Olympians have the same score, the one with highest popularity(provided one exists) archives victory. If two or more Olympians have the same score and the same popularity, the one(s) with the most total medals achieves victory. At this point, if there is still a tie, whoever claims eir victory first achieves victory.

The 11th is still several days away, so no need to panic. If I do an event every other day, that’s still 10 more events before this thing ends.

Add the following to end of rule 2.3.2 training:

*For each event run, the coach may award up to five TP to Olympian whom the coach deems helped write the event. The amount of TP should be proportional to the amount of help writing the event, that is, a near copy of the event should earn 5 TP while only a small idea should earn 1 TP.

Add a subrule to 2.4 called Awe, stating:

Each Sunday at 12:00 AM, the Olympian with the highest value in each attribute gains one popularity point. The one with the lowest value in each attribute loses one popularity point. This is only applied if there is a unique point leader for the attribute (a tie will result in no points being awarded or taken away, as is the case), and each Olympian may only earn or lose one popularity point for each attribute per week.

Lets make it 1 for 7!

By ELIAS IX, Associated Reuters Writer

Upstatenewyork, Blognomic - Developments in sport science have allowed the rapid development of mind and body. These new methods have doubled the pace at which athletes are able to increase their physical and mental prowess. The cost of these new training methods, however, is so high that it is only affordable to the nations of Blognomic and Japan, the latter of which has withheld competing in the Olympics ever since the tragic 2043 death of their entire bobsled, soccer, and ping pong teams.

Replace the following in rule 2.3.2, Training:

Often, an Olympian may give every current Olympian one Training Point, provided no other Olympian has done so that day. If e does so, he must give every current Olympian the training point.

with this:

Often, an Olympian may give every current Olympian two Training Points, provided no other Olympian has done so that day. If e does so, he must give every current Olympian the training points.

I admit it.

Add a sub rule to 2.4 called Awe, stating:

The Olympians holding the greatest number of points in each attribute gain one Popularity Point. (e.g. if Bucky has more Strength than anyone else, e gains a Popularity Point. If ChinDoGu has more Dexterity and more Wit than all other Olympians, e gains two popularity points.) This may only be done once while the Olympian has the most of that attribute. The moment this ceases to be true, e loses the Popularity Point e gained. (e.g. if spikebrennan trains eir strength so that e has more than Bucky, Bucky loses the point e gained, and spikebrennan gains a point.)

If a single Olympian has a higher sum of all eir attributes than all other Olympians, e gains 3 Popularity Points. The moment this ceases to be true, e loses the three points.

If an Olympian meets the requirements to gain popularity points because of this rule, but e is unable to gain the Popularity Points, e does not lose a Popularity Point when this ceases to be true: An Olympian can only lose as many Popularity Points as e gained. If an Olympian is using the Banned Trainer, e is not eligible to win any popularity points from this rule.

This way Olympians with too much popularity to gain anything from this rule aren’t hurt by it, and the current highest attribute holders can gain the popularity point before losing it if someone overtakes eir attribute points. Because of the way the Banned Trainer rule is stated, this rule could have adverse affects on Olympians who use the Banned Trainer. Plus, people won’t respect an Olympian who uses that trainer, despite eir muscliness or intelligence.

Add to rule 2.3.2 (Training)

An Olympian can never have more training points than twice the average of eir attributes

If at any time any tp changing effect would cause them to do so, then eir lowest attribute will be increased by 1 point automatically, and the appropriate amount of TP deducted as if they had just trained that attribute.  This process is repeated untill they no longer exceed eir limit.

Any olympian who currently exceeds eir limit will have eir TP spent as if their TP had just changed when this proposal passes.

Routinely, I notice proposals that have expired, yet are still piling up in the proposal queue. I think we need more admins. I am active and visit the site daily. I hope to help the nomic work less congestedly.

Add to rule 2.3.2 (Training)

An Olympian can never have more training points than twice the average of eir attributes

If at any time any tp changing effect would cause them to do so, then eir lowest stat will be increased by 1 point automatically.  This process is repeated untill they no longer exceed eir limit.

Any olympian who currently exceeds eir limit will have eir TP spent as if their TP had just changed when this proposal passes.

This may be added to if it passes - just wanted to get the simpler bit passed first.

Add a new rule, “Current Fitness”;

Every statement, apart from this one, in this rule and its subrules is false.

Each Olympian hasn’t got a Current Fitness. Current Fitness isn’t a whole number between 0 and 20. An Olympians Current Fitness isn’t tracked by the GNDT’s column “Fitness”. New Olympians don’t start with a Current Fitness of 12.

This CfJ requests that the determination of the results of the “Scrabble Thing” event be re-run, with my entry “VEINY J” not disqualified.  Per the discussion in the comments to the blog post announcing the award of medals for that event, the disqualification of my entry was contrary to the rules.  (The letters -EI—in my entry duplicated letters in a non-Olympian competitor’s entry, not those in an Olympian’s entry which is what the description of the event provides.)

Proposal to rewrite Rule 2.5 so that it reads in its entirety as follows:

Rule 2.5 Olympic Events
There is a post stickied to the top of the blog called “Upcoming Events”. This post may Often be edited by the Coach to include new Events.  Each upcoming Event must have a unique name, and its entry on the “Upcoming Events” stickied post must be accompanied by a brief summary.

For each upcoming Event, the coach must also update the “Upcoming Events” section of the Events Page on the Wiki detailing the event. The detailing should include:

1) A cost (In TP) for an Olympian to compete in in the Event.
2) Whether the Event is for individual Competitors or for Teams.
3) Any additional criteria for an Olympian to participate in the Event (these criteria that are stated in the description of the Event, in addition to any criteria of general applicability that are stated in the Rules, are referred to as that Event’s “Criteria for Participation”).
4) The Conditions for Termination of the Event.
5) The Conditions for Awarding Medals once the Event has terminated (i.e., a description of the methodology for determining which competitors will be awarded Medals for that Event)
6) If the Event is for individual competitors, a list of competitors (other than Olympians) who will be competing in the event.  If the Event is for Teams, a description of the manner in which the performance of each Team (other than Teams composed of Olympians) is to be determined.

The term “Competitor”, when used in the Ruleset (including this Rule) or in the description of any Event, refers to:
1) if the Event is for individual competitors, either (A) any Olympian who has signed up for the Event and who meets the Criteria for Participation; or (B) any individual competitor other than an Olympian who represents a rival Team and is described in the description of the Event; and
2) if the Event is for Teams, either (A) the Blognomic Team; or (B) any rival Team that is described in the description of the Event.

The Conditions for Termination for the Event must be possible to satisfy.  The Conditions for Awarding Medals for the Event must be such that an equal number of Bronze, Silver and Gold medals are awarded.  An Olympian will only be eligible to win a Medal if, in addition to satisfying the Conditions for Awarding Medals for that Event, e meets all the Criteria for Participation for that Event.  Unless the description of the Event expressly provides otherwise, the Conditions for Awarding Medals must be the same for all Competitors.

When the Conditions for Termination are met, Medals are Awarded based on the Conditions for Awarding Medals.  Any Olympian who earned a Medal will have eir proper Medal count increased by one in the GNDT (That is, an Olympian who wins a “Gold Medal” will have “Gold” increased by one).  Any competitor other than an Olympian who is, or represents, a rival Team who earned a Medal will have that rival Team’s proper medal count increased by one in the GNDT.  The Medals will be deemed to have been awarded at the time specified in Rule 2.1.  The blog post described in Rule 2.1 that announces the awarding of Medals for the Event must also include the score or result of each Competitor in the Event, whether or not that Competitor was awarded a Medal.

The event is then removed from the “Upcoming Events” section of the Events page and added,along with results, to the “Old Events” section of the Events Page on the Wiki. The event is also removed from the Upcoming events post on the blog.

Olympians are encouraged to send the Coach ideas for Events by updating the talk section of the events page on the Wiki.

The Upcoming Events page is considered part of the Gamestate and thus may only be edited as explicitly allowed by the Rules.

If I go idle then this Proposal Fails.

in rule 2.3.2, change the point:

Often, an Olympian may give every current Olympian one Training Point, provided no other Olympian has done so that day. If e does so, he must give every current Olympian the training point.

to read:

Often, an Olympian may give every current Olympian one Training Point, provided no other Olympian has done so that day. If e does so, he must give every current Olympian the training point. When e does so, e may give emself another Training Point.

At least this way there will be a little compensation for doing it, without throwing out game balance or anything.

Medals for Scrabble have been awarded. They were

GOLD: ChinDoGu
SILVER: Doremi
BRONZE: Excalibur Homeland

The nation of Rand McNally engaged in a brutal civil war.  Brother was pitted against brother.  The two sides remain divided to this day…
Part 1:
Amend Rule 2.2 so that the text:

Rand McNally (Considered by most bookmakers to be our fiercest competition. In Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people!)

is revised to read:

Rand. In Rand , they wear hats on their feet.!)  Rand can never compete in an event in which McNally competes.
McNally.  In McNally, hamburgers eat people!) McNally can never compete in an event in which Rand competes.

Part 2: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the GNDT will be appropriately revised to delete the entry for Rand McNally and to add separate entries for Rand and McNally.  Upon the adoption of this proposal, half of Rand McNally’s medals of each category (gold, silver, bronze), rounding down to the nearest whole number of medals, will be transferred to the new team of Rand, and all of Rand McNally’s remaining medals will be transferred to the new team of McNally.  Rand McNally will cease to be a rival or a team.

Medals for Paintball have been awarded. The were

Gold: Excalibur Homeland
Silver: Klodistan
Bronze: Doremi

External circumstances force me to go idle.

Add to Rule 2.5, the bullet point;

6) The Chance of becoming Injured. (DICE10(X) where X is decided by the coach for that Event)

Also add to Rule 2.6, the Trainer;

Physio Trainer: An Olympian must have Fitness less than 10 to use this trainer. Effect: An Olympian may occasionally decrease eir training points by 2 to gain up to 2 Fitness.

Also add new Rule, called “Fitness”;

Each Olympian has a Fitness which is a whole number between 0 and 20. An Olympians Fitness is tracked by the GNDT’s column “Fitness”.

New Olympians start with a Fitness of 12.

Unless e has the Physio Trainer, an Olympian may occasionally reduce eir training points by 2 to gain 1 Fitness.
An Olympian with Fitness less than 9 is Unfit.
An Olympian can not participate in Olympic Events if e is unfit.

The Chance of becoming Injured is a X number of rolls of DICE10. If at least 1 of these rolls returns 10 then the Olympian becomes injured. When an Olympian becomes injured eir Fitness is reduced by DICE10, e is then no longer injured.

I think it’d be cool if Olympians could form rogue teams and compete for those teams rather than Blognomic

Add a bullet to Rivals 2.2:

Any team that an Olympian has formed

and add a new rule entitled Team Proliferation stating:

An Olympian may occasionally remove emself from eir current team and form a new one. To do so e must post a notice with the name of the new team in the title, informing all other Olympians of eir decision.

An Olympian may also, occasionally, try to join an existing team that has been founded by another Olympian. To do so, e must remove emself from any team to which e belongs and post a proposal declaring which team e wants to join in the title. The founder of the team may vote FOR, AGAINST or VETO, and all other members of the team the Olympian wants to join may vote FOR, AGAINST, or IMPERIAL. Any votes made by Olympians who do not belong to the team that is trying to be joined are not counted when enacting the proposal, and Quorum for the proposal is defined as half of all Olympians in the team that appears in the title.

If an Olympian leaves eir team and is not accepted by a team e tried to join, e does not simply return to eir previous team. E must wait to try to join another team, or e may create a team of eir own.

A team that is not RandMcNally, Excalibur Homeland, or Klodistan ceases to exist the moment it has 0 Olympian members.

Add to Rule 2.3, the Attribute;

Health - It measures an Olympian’s physical Health at that point in Time.

Also add to Rule 2.5, the bullet point;

6) The Chance (in DICEX) of becoming Injured.

Finally add new Rule called “Injury”;

If an Olympian becomes Injured e loses DICE10 Health, e is then no longer Injured. An Olympian with Health less than 1 is Unhealthy. An Unhealthy Olympian can not participate in Olympic Events.

I am wondering why any time I try to make something reward people who come at least once a day, people don’t like it. It seems to me that if someone comes on once day, e should receive some benefit . Instead, there are all these safeguards to prevent people from progressing faster by logging on more often.

I would like to get to know the spirit of the game more, so I have a better chance of passing a proposal that works. So far, I have failed to pass a proposal that left too much open, failed to pass one that was too complicated, failed to become an admin, and failed to pass a simple change in the rules that would allow each Olympian to change eir own TP instead of having to go through the list and giving everyone a point, even people who are inactive.

Does anyone have any advice towards producing a working proposal, or any explanation why activity shouldn’t be rewarded?

Clucky—can you walk us through how you did the rolls to score the stock car race?  (I’m not challenging the results, yet… I just want to understand the process).

As I interpret the rules, each competitor’s total time (in milliseconds) would be determined as follows:

“The race itself is 200 laps long. Each lap takes one minute for a standard stockcar to complete.”

So before the adjustments, the race would be (200 (laps) x 60 (seconds per lap) x 1000 (milliseconds per second)), or 12,000,000 milliseconds for the race for each competitor.

This 12,000,000 milliseconds would then be reduced as follows:

This one minute is reduced by X milliseconds, where X is ten times the value of the stockcar’s performance. It is then again reduced by the result of a Dexterity + Wits roll made for each racer. This process is repeated 200 times, once per lap. ... To speed things along, instead of making 200 Dexterity + Wits rolls, each Olympian makes a single 200*(Dexterity+Wits)

The performance roll is only done once and then used for each of the 200 laps, whereas the dex + wits roll is made 200 times (once for each lap).  Fair enough.  So a competitor’s total time, in milliseconds, would be

12,000,000 - (200 x 10 x (performance rating)) - 200DICE(dex+wits).

If my analysis is correct, can you walk me through what you did and show how it fits this equation?  I’m having trouble parsing the GNDT log and seeing what the various rolls that you made are supposed to represent.

In 2.3.2, change the point

Often, an Olympian may give every current Olympian one Training Point, provided no other Olympian has done so that day. If e does so, he must give every current Olympian the training point.

to

Often, an Olympian may give emself one Training Point.

This way the most active Olympians are rewarded

In the ruleset in section 2.5 “Medals can only be awarded to Olympians who meet all the Criteria for Participation”

Rivals are never defined to be olympians, and as such cannot win medals. 

(Technically I could have just corected this, but I’m reasonably certian there will be discussion on it, so I am just going to cfj it now)

Thus the objective of this cfj is

Reset all medal tallies for all rival teams to 0.
Add to the rule 2.5 after the text “Medals can only be awarded to Olympians who meet all the Criteria for Participation”

or to Rivals.

A new rule called “Bribes”. Second attempt, with suggested changes:

When writing a proposal, an Olympian may offer TP to be given to the first X number of Olympians to approve eir proposal. If another Olympian votes FOR the proposal, they shall be given that number of TP and it shall be subtracted from the author’s TP. In the case that an Olympian within the bribe range (for example, sixth olympian to vote when 10 have been offered the bribe) votes AGAINST the proposal, one less Olympian may take the bribe and the author shall not lose those TP. No other attributes may be traded. A veto will return all bribed-away TP to the author. If the proposal fails, Olympians who took the bribe will retain the bribed TP.
If an Olympian votes AGAINST, e can never accept the bribe; if e votes FOR, and later votes AGAINST, e loses the bribe (forever) and no one else can take the lost bribe.
There is no limit on complexity of TP offers (5 to the first voter, 4 to the next, etc, or simple flat TP rates) as long as the author will have 0 or more TP after the bribe is complete.
Only the first vote by an Olympian affects how many others can take a bribe after the vote. One Olympian voting FOR and AGAINST 10 times would only prevent 1 Olympian from taking the bribe, not 10.

Add the following text to the end of Rule 2.1:

Immediately after an Olympian goes Idle, the Team gains Bronze, Silver and Gold medals equal to the number e had when e went Idle.  Should e be de-Idled later in the Dynasty, eir Team loses those medals.Because e was idle when the changes happened, e still has all Medals e had before when e de-idles, the Team just holds onto them in the meantime.

No, I don’t think there will be any kind of implementation problem

I’m doing my warm up lap, and anouncing my arrival. Lets get me some gold.

The phrase “Any Olympian without a trainer has this trainer” (in the description of “normal trainer”) is self-contradictory.  The purpose of this proposal is to resolve any doubt as to whether it is really possible to have a “normal trainer”, and to grandfather in all prior TP increases in reliance on the “normal trainer”.
This proposal is as follows:
Part 1:
The following sentence in Rule 2.6

Any Olympian without a trainer has this trainer.

is amended to read:

Any Olympian without another kind of trainer has this trainer.

Part 2: If this proposal is adopted, then all TP increases by reason of reliance on a “normal trainer” that occurred prior to the adoption of this proposal are deemed valid if they would have been valid under Rule 2.6 as amended by this proposal.

Background: A recent proposal by another Olympian prompted me to look at the Ruleset provisions with respect to the awarding of medals.  Given that under certain circumstances it may become relevant to determine exactly when a medal has been awarded, I felt that some clarification with respect to this issue would be helpful.  Under this rule, the initial award of medals happens when the Coach says that it does (since in many cases, nothing is known until the results for the rival teams are rolled), and appropriate notices are to be given of the awarding of medals and of changes in medal ownership.

This is a proposal to add the following text to Rule 2.1, immediately after the first sentence:

With respect to a particular Event, unless the description of the Event provides otherwise, all Medals for the Event will be deemed to have been awarded at the time that the Coach posts a notice to the blog that the Medals for that Event have been awarded.  The Coach will also post to the “Old Events” section of the Events Page of the Wiki an indication of the time that the Medals have been awarded, as well as the identity of the winners of each medal.  After the Medals for an Event are awarded, any subsequent circumstance that results in a change in the holder of any Medal of that Event will be reported by a notice to the blog and an appropriate indication in the “Old Events” section of the Events Page of the Wiki.

Add a subrule to rule 2.5 stating:

An Olympian who received a silver or bronze medal for an event may attempt to get the gold or silver medal, respectively, for that event:

E may attempt to talk the judges into thinking that e was the real winner of the medal. To do so e makes a wit roll. If the outcome is greater than 9(X - 1) (where X is the average wit of all Olympians), e successfully talks the judge into giving em the higher medal (gold if e won silver, silver if e won bronze).

E may instead attempt a slight of hand, switching the medals without the other Olympian seeing or noticing. The Olympian trying to get the higher medal makes a dexterity roll, and the Olympian e is trying to steal from makes a dexterity and wit roll. If the thieving Olympian’s roll is greater than the victim’s, e steals the medal and replaces it with eir own.

Each of these attempts cost 3 TP to make, and must be made within 24 hours of having eir medal awarded. Only the Olympians who were originally awarded the silver or bronze medal may try to do this, and may only try it once. E must pick which method to try, and may not try the other if it fails. Eir target may only be the holder of the medal that is just higher than eir own (Gold if e won silver, silver if e won bronze). If E attempts to take the medal from someone not on the Team, e may only attempt the first method. If eir attempt fails, the Olympian forfeits eir medal to eir prospective victim, loses 5 popularity points, and, if eir target was on the Team, e may not participate in an event for a week.

In the case that the winner of the silver method successfully gains the gold medal, and the winner of the bronze medal has not yet attempted to take a medal for that event, eir target, should e choose to attempt it, would be the original winner of the gold medal (who now has the silver medal).

If the attempt is successful, e switches medals with eir target for that event. TP is awarded for the event based on the new winners of the medals, and any TP that was already awarded for the event is taken away.

Add to the bulleted list at the end of “Training”:

* When enacting a Proposal that has been open for vote for no more than 18 hours, the Admin doing so shall award 1 Training Point to each Olympian who has cast a counted vote on such Proposal. The implicit vote of the Proposal’s author is also counted.

* When enacting or failing a timed-out Proposal, the admin doing so shall take 1 TP from each Olympian who has not cast a vote on such Proposal. If that would bring an Olympian’s Training Points to less than zero, said Olympian shall lose 1 Popularity instead.

Add a “Admining” sub-rule to “Popularity”:

When enacting a Proposal that has been open for vote for no more than 18 hours, the Admin doing so may award eirself 1 Popularity.

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the text “24 is better”, change both instances of “18” above to “24”.

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the text “Not Pop”, change the instance “may award eirself 1 Popularity” above to “may award eirself 2 Training Points.”

Add to the bulleted list in the end of “Training”:

* Just before an Olympian goes Idle for not voting in a week, the Training Points that Olympian would have at the moment of Idling shall be distributed equally (round down) between all the remaining Olympians and the Idling Olympian’s Training Points shall be set to zero.

This really goes against the spirit of a returning Olympian having the same stats e left with.  Notwithstanding, the returning player may get a TP level similar to the one a new player would have, since e can set eir TP to the average of attributes held by other Olympians. And this only affects the ones going Idle for not voting in a time. If you choose to go Idle for the weekend, your TP’s are not distributed.

Add a new item to the list in the Rule entitled “Specialization”:

*Expensive Trainer:An Olympian must have at least 5 TP and attributes averaging at least 3.5 to begin using this Trainer.  When an Olympian begins using this Trainer, e loses 5 TP.  While an Olympian has this Trainer, the costs of all attribute increases fot that Olympian are reduced by 1, but not to any cost less than 0.

I would like to be an Admin. I am extremely active.

Amendment for section 2.6. Old text:

Normal Trainer: Requirements: None. Any Olympian without a trainer has this trainer. Effect: An Olympian using this trainer may occasionally increase eir training points by one.

New text:

Normal Trainer: Requirements: None. Any Olympian without a trainer has this trainer. Effect: An Olympian using this trainer may occasionally increase eir training points by one. This increase can only be performed once in 48 hours.

Could somebody admin these proposals that are pending? There are about ten pending proposals that are old enough.

Add a sub-rule to “Olympic Events” entitled “Cheating”.

An Olympian may attempt to cheat in any Event in which e competes. Cheating is carried out as follows: The Olympian in question rolls a DICE10. This result is the cheat multiplier, X. The Olympian will then roll DICE100. If the result is less than or equal to N*X, where N is the number of times this dynasty the Olympian has attempted to cheat, the Olympian is caught and loses all Medals and 5 popularity. The Olympian may not compete in any events for a week. Otherwise, the cheat is successful. The Olympian rolls a DICE3. If the roll is a 1, e earns a Bronze Medal. If the roll is a 2, e earns a Silver Medal. If the roll is a 3, e earns a Gold Medal. The other two medals are awarded to the first and second place finishers in the actual event.

We have a Cheat rule that gains you TP, but the most common actual cheating in the real world is in an event. This is to reflect that.

The first time around, this proposal was adminned because I had two pending proposals at the time that I proposed it.  At the time that it was adminned, there was one vote in favor and one vote against (Clucky).

The following amendment to Rule 2.3.2 is hereby proposed:
Revise the following text in Rule 2.3.2:

The Coach may often award up to 3 Training Points to any Olympian, or fine any Olympian up to 2 Training Points.

so that it reads as follows:

The Coach may often award up to 3 Training Points to any Olympian.  The Coach may often fine any Olympian up to 2 Training Points but must simultaneously award that Olympian the same number of Popularity points.

Add to the bulleted list in the end of “Training”:

* Just before an Olympian goes Idle for not voting in a week, the Training Points that Olympian would have at the moment of Idling shall be distributed equally (round down) between all the remaining Olympians and the Idling Olympian’s Training Points shall be set to zero.

Add to the bulleted list in the end of “Training”:

* If e has not done so in the last 48 hours and X is greater than zero, an Olympian may set eir training points to X, where X is equal to the average (rounded down) of the total of each other Olympian’s attributes minus the total of eir own attributes. So if Clucky had 2,3,3,3; Elias had 4,2,2,3; Bucky had 3,3,5,1 and Chronos had 2,2,2,2, e would set eir Training Points to 3: ((11+11+12)/3)-8 = 11-8 = 3

This time for real.

Since I’m utterly powerless right now (shakes fist at proposal queue) I figured I would investigate the winning conditions.

.... what are they? When someone has maximum attributes, TP, and popularity?

Add a new rule called The Awe Factor, stating:

If an attribute of an Olympian changes, causing that attribute to be higher than that of any other Olympian, e gains 1 popularity point. This can only be done at the moment that eir attribute in question becomes the highest of any other Olympian. At the moment that this becomes untrue, e loses 1 popularity point.  This could be true for a single Olympian of more than one attribute, and e would gain a popularity point for each applicable attribute, but only at the moment that each point becomes the highest of any other Olympian.

  The Olympian with the highest sum of all attributes gains 3 popularity points once, at the moment eir sum becomes higher than any other Olympian’s sum. If this ceases to be true, e loses the 3 popularity points.

There.

Add to rule 1.5

If a player has voted on any other proposal in the current proposal queue, but has not voted on the proposal being enacted, then that player can be treated as idle for the purpose of determining quorum for the proposal.

Add a new rule called The Awe Factor, stating:

If an Olympian has an attribute whose value is greater than that of any other Olympian, e gains 1 popularity point. At the moment that this becomes untrue, e loses 1 popularity point.  This could be true for a single Olympian of more than one attribute, and e would gain a popularity point for each applicable attribute.

The Olympian with the highest sum of all attributes gains 3 popularity points. If this ceases to be true, e loses the 3 popularity points.

Two housekeeping suggestions:

- Change the order of the rows in the Game Data table so that all Olympians are listed above all rival teams.  Currently, there is a list of some Olympians, then some teams, then some more Olympians.

- Each subpage of the main page should have a link back to the main page.  At present, not all do.  See comments link for example.  It’d be nice to have the blognomic logo at the top of the page so that you can quickly get back to the main page.

For most of my time in Blognomic, I’ve had two proposals pending;  At times the two-proposal limit has been a real drag on the speed of the dynasty as well as a needless restriction on the creativity of individual players.  This is even worse when there’s no Admin available for several days in a row.  The point of the limit is to stop scams requiring near-infinite proposals, not to slow down the proposal rate. 

In the Core Rule entitled “Proposals”, change the text:

unless the Olympian already has 2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day

to:

unless the Olympian has already made 2 Proposals that day

I think I get how to join. I say so on the wiki, and I alter my TP on the GNDT database accordingly. But where does the actual event take place, and what am I supposed to do about it?

Third time’s the charm.
Add a new rule to the ruleset, as follows.

If an Olympian who signs up to participate in an event ends up in sole possession of last place among all competitors in that event (including both Olympians and other competitors, if any, that may be identified in the description of the event), and the Olympian does not win any Medals in the event, then the Olympian is awarded one Popularity point.

Somebody added everyone’s trainer TP today even though it was already done on monday—t’s occasionally, not often—and then some people also added it today for themselves, which I think was legal because it was a new user who wasn’t here monday, but then again perhaps not.  I don’t know if I have to CfJ this or if I could just revert the changes myself—sorry, I’m kinda new at this.  But this way is more likely to stop it from happening again anyway.

I voted against (and therefore killed) my proposal “Eddie the Eagle” before posting “Foot Faults” (which seems to be going down in flames) and “Eddie the Eagle, Corrected”.  Thus, by my counting, at the time that I posted “Corrected”, I had one pending proposal, not two, from which it follows that “Corrected” was improperly adminned to death.  I request that the adminning of “Corrected” be reversed.  (I make no such request with respect to “Sympathy for the Devil” which appears to have been properly adminned.

Add a new rule called “Bribes”:

When writing a proposal, an Olympian may offer TP to be given to the first X number of Olympians to approve eir proposal. If another Olympian votes FOR the proposal, they shall be given that number of TP and it shall be subtracted from the author’s TP. In the case that an Olympian within the bribe range (for example, sixth olympian to vote when 10 have been offered the bribe) votes AGAINST the proposal, one less Olympian may take the bribe and the author shall not lose those TP. No other attributes may be traded. A veto will return all bribed-away TP to the author. If the proposal fails, Olympians who took the bribe will retain the bribed TP.

Proposed new rule to be added to section “2.4 Popularity” as “2.4.3 Democratic restrictions on the veto”.

If the Coach decides to Veto a proposal, e shall have one of the following applied to emself, at eir choice. If e cannot apply a rule without going below 0, the Veto will be rendered void.

* Lose one popularity point
* TP cut in half (rounded down)
* Subtract 2 from one attribute

1. There are no current events? Are these added by proposals as well? I had the impression that games were consistently running on every Sunday.
2. To change my attributes, I can just go to the GNDT config editor? I don’t want to break any more rules.

Add a new Rule to the Ruleset.  Call it “Politics” and give it the following text:

Any Olympian with medals may decrease eir count of each type of medal, to a minimum of 0.  If that Olympian has Popularity less than -3, e gains Popularity equal to twice the number of Gold medals e gave up, plus the number of Silver Medals e gave up, plus half the number of Bronze medals e gave up.  This cannot raise eir Popularity above -3.

Proposed amendment to Rule 2.3.2

Revise the following text in Rule 2.3.2:

The Coach may often award up to 3 Training Points to any Olympian, or fine any Olympian up to 2 Training Points.

so that it reads as follows:

The Coach may often award up to 3 Training Points to any Olympian.  The Coach may often fine any Olympian up to 2 Training Points but must simultaneously award that Olympian the same number of Popularity points.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, as follows.

If an Olympian who signs up to participate in an event ends up in sole possession of last place among all competitors in the event (including both Olympians and other competitors, if any, that may be identified in the description of the event), and the Olympian does not win any Medals in the event, then the Olympian is awarded one Popularity point.

Proposed new rule. 

If an Olympian posts a proposal that does not expressly state that it is a proposal to add a new Rule to the Ruleset (but also does not expressly state that it is any other kind of proposal such as, for instance, a proposal to amend an existing Rule), then it shall be presumed that the proposal is to add a new Rule to the ruleset, which new rule would (if duly approved) consist of the text of the proposal (and omitting any preliminary text that is clearly a preamble).

Hi, I am new here. How do we use training points and enter events?

In the Rule entitled “Training”, replace the text:

  Any time a proposal passes, its author gains one training point.

with:

  Any time a proposal passes, its author gains one TP depending on the nature of how it passed:
*If it passes with zero against votes, e gains 5 TP.
*If it passes with one or two against votes, e gains 4 TP.
*If it passes by only one vote(and so the difference between the number of for votes and the number of against votes is one) e only gains 2 TP.
*Elsewise, e gains 3 TP.

Also, add the following text to the end of Rule 2.1:

  New Olympians start with 0 Medals of each type.

Add the following subrule to 2.5 called ‘Letdown’

If an event has no cost to join (and thus has no reason not to join), an Olympian does not sign up for the event, and e could have signed up for the event when the event sign-ups closed, e loses one popularity and five TP (minimum of zero).

If an Olympian joined or came back from being idle within 24 hours of the deadline to sign up for the event, e is exempt from this rule.

This is to make sure everyone joins a team event. The third part of the if clause is for the cases where every spot on the team is filled. But I hate having to fill a team with lots of my clones…

...

I’m unidleing myself.

I would like to join the game (Yes I am the same ChinDoGu from ages back, using a different email address these days though)

Thanks

CDG

(This is mostly directed at Bucky)—

The event description for Psychic Football didn’t say anything about a TP cost to register for that event, and I didn’t find anything in the Rules that establishes a 1 TP cost for that event when the event description is silent.  So I want my 1 TP back.

Also, I correctly picked Chris Leak as MVP (actually the Powers that Be selected two MVPs: an offensive one (Leak) and a defensive one (Derrick Harvey)), so I get a Wits bump up too.

I suppose that I got at least a Bronze medal for correctly picking the winner—perhaps better, but we won’t know until we know what the rival teams’ picks were.

If an Olympian who signs up to participate in an event ends up in sole possession of last place among all competitors in the event (including both Olympians and other competitors, if any, that may be identified in the description of the event), and the Olympian does not win any Medals in the event, then the Olympian is awarded one Popularity point.

To be added to rule 2.4.2, “Obscurity”:

Any Olympian who has just joined or become unidle (if e was idle before the previous Sunday) shall not be subject to this rule the first Sunday after e joins/becomes unidle.

During the Football Tournament, the Coach noticed a flaw in the balance of the tournament rules, and changed them in the middle of the tournament.  After a quick reading of the Rules, this seems legal.

However, the Coach then invalidated an earlier game (in which Blognomic beat Excalabur Homeland) because it did not comply with the new rules.  I believe this to be illegal.

One of the basic principles of Nomic (which the Ruleset hints at in places) is that actions are judged by the Rules as they were at the time that the action was taken, rather than the Rules at any later, or earlier point in time. One can see where this is important; The alternative is to take actions while not knowing whether they’re legal or not.

Therefore, the Blognomic vs. EH game had been legally conducted, and as such, Blognomic should have won at least the Silver Medal.

Should this CfJ Pass, all Medals won from that Team Football tournament shall be confiscated, and games 3 and 4 of said tournament shall be re-rolled using the original result of Game1, under the version of the Team Soccer/Football Rules that were in effect at 01:38 AM on January 8th, 2007, (that is, after Clucky changed them mid-tournament), and medals shall be awarded according to those Rules.

(for reference, the stats of the Olympians in the event were:
spikebrennen:5,5,5,5
Bucky:4,2,6,3
Clucky:2,4,4,5)

To be added to rule 2.4.2, “Obscurity”:

Any Olympian who has just joined or become unidle (if e was idle before the previous Sunday) shall not be subject to this rule the first Sunday after e joins/becomes unidle.

Edit: Voided (though it was never valid) as per comments below. See new post above.

In the Rule entitled “Training”, replace the text:

Any time a proposal passes, its author gains one training point.

with:

Any time a proposal passes, its author gains one training point for every FOR vote that proposal recieved, minus one for every AGAINST vote that proposal recieved.

Also, add the following text to the end of Rule 2.1:

New Olympians start with 0 Medals of each type.

Add a new Dynastic Rule entitled “Dynastic Acceleration”:

Olympians may not increase any one of their attributes until they have authored at least one enacted proposal. This rule does not apply retroactively. Thus, all attribute increases made before this rule is enacted are legal.

Sure, you can say this is unfair and punishes new players. I don’t care. This dynasty needs more new rules, even if I’m also to blame.

I’d like to be unidled please.

Add three new items to the list in Rule 2.3.2

*The recipient of a Bronze medal in an Event receives TP equal to the cost of competing in that event.
*The recipient of a Silver medal in an Event receives TP equal to twice the cost of competing in that event.
*The recipient of a Gold medal in an Event receives TP equal to four times the cost of competing in that event.

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the text “Refunds”, give all Olympians with Medals TP equal to what they would have won had the text in this Rule been in effect when e won each Medal.

Clucky, could you please grant JoshuaGross and Alethiophile Exceptions from Rule 2.4.2 for this week?

I am no longer idle.

Alethiophile and Shallowminded both went Idle.

With JoshuaGross now playing, Quorum is still 5.

I’m joining the game. I’m new so I’d appreciate tips and advice. Thank you!

Clucky, is there some reason you have Blognomic going up the hard side of the tournament again this time?

I also think that Psychic Football needs another rival to keep medals from falling through the cracks:

McWeasel(Rand McNally): McWeasel doesn’t make any prediction; instead, if any medals would go unawarded, McWeasel talks the referees into giving him the medal.

For example, if Florida State wins 7-3, McWeasel would need to collect the silver and bronze medals to fulfill the requirement that an equal number of Bronze, Silver and Gold medals be awarded.

Simplified version of prior proposal.

Add a new Dynastic rule, as follows:

At any time, any Olympian may attempt to influence the outcome of any Event through bribery, in accordance with this rule.  The bribing Olympian must make a comment that identifies the Event the outcome of which the Olympian wishes to attempt to influence, and the number of TP that the bribing Olympian wishes to spend on the attempt.  That number of TP is considered spent whether the attempt is successful or not.  The bribing Olympian must then make a comment of BRIBE DICE"B” where “B” is equal to twelve (12) minus the bribing Olympian’s Wits attribute.  Subject to the provisions of this rule, the attempt is considered successful if the result of the roll is less than the number of TP that the bribing Olympian spent on the attempt.  The attempt is considered to have failed if the result of the roll is greater than or equal to the number of TP that the bribing Olympian spent on the attempt, or if the result of the roll is exactly equal to the result of the roll of any other Olympian’s attempt to engage in bribery with respect to that same event.  If a bribing Olympian’s attempt to bribe fails, the Olympian loses two Popularity points.  If a bribing Olympian’s attempt to bribe succeeds, then subject to the provisions of this rule, that Olympian may designate any one Olympian (including eimself) as the gold medal winner of the event (and the Olympian or other competitor who won or would have won the gold medal but for this rule is demoted to the silver medal, the silver medal to bronze, and the bronze to no medal).  If two or more bribing Olympians’ attempts are successful with respect to the same event, then the bribing Olympian with the lowest bribe roll may designate the gold medal winner, the bribing Olympian with the next lowest bribe roll may designate the silver medal winner, and so on.

Add a new Dynastic rule, as follows:

At any time, any Olympian may declare that e is defecting from eir current Team to any other Team that is mentioned in the Rules, by announcing the defection in a post to the blog.  The defection will have the following effects: the defecting Olympian will lose DICE3 TP (but not more than all of eirs TP) the defecting Olympian will cease to be a member of the pre-defection Team and will become a member of the Team to which e declares that he is defecting, eirs popularity will be set to zero, e will forfeit any Medals, and eirs pre-defection team will be deemed to have forfeited any team Medals that the defecting Olympian had won on behalf of that Team prior to the defection.  However, the Team to which the defecting Olympian defects will not acquire any medals as a result of the defection.

Add a new Dynastic Rule to the Ruleset.  Call it “Heroism” and give it the following text:

For the purposes of this Rule and its subrules, each Olympian has a Score equal to three times eir Gold Medals, plus twice eir Silver Medals, plus eir Bronze Medals, all times eir Popularity Multiplier That is, (3G+2S+B)*M.  Eir Popularity Multiplier is 1/2 if e is Notorious, 3/4 if e is Unpopular but not Notorious, 2 if e is Star, 3/2 if e is Popular but not Star, and 1 if no other multiplier applies.

A Team has a Score equal to the total Score of its member Olympians plus the score an Olympian with its medals and a Popularity of 1 would have.

Any Olympian is considered a Hero and has achieved victory if:
1)E has a Score greater than any Team of which e is not a member.
2)If multple Olympians meet condition 1, e has a Popularity greater than or equal to all Olympians that meet condition 1.
3)If multiple Olympians meet conditions 1 and 2, e has a Score greater than or equal to all Olympians that meet condition 2.

If multiple Olympians meer all three conditions aat the same time, the first one to declare victory wins, as in past Dynasties.

Add a new Rule to the Ruleset.  Call it “Specialization” and give it the following text:

An Olympian may choose to specialize in a certain area by using a special trainer. Trainers are marked in a column of the GNDT called “Trainer”. An Olympian may often change eir trainer, but may not change eir trainer more than two times per week. Trainers, as well as the benefits and requirements for using the trainers, are described below:

*Normal Trainer: Requirements: None. Any Olympian without a trainer has this trainer. Effect: An Olympian using this trainer may occasionally increase eir training points by one.
*Lucky Trainer: An Olympian must have attributes at least 1,1,1,10 and Popularity at least three to begin to use this trainer. Effect: When a Olympian using this trainer makes an attributes role, e rolls a DICE11 instead of a DICE10.
*Powerful Trainer: An Olympian must either have attributes of at least 5,5,5,5 or strength of at least 10 to begin to use this trainer. Effect: When an Olympian uses this trainer, the cost of training Strength is cut in half and rounded up. Thus, if e has attributes 11,5,4,3 e must only spend 6 TP to increase eir strength.
*Banned Trainer: An Olympian must have popularity below 0 to begin to use this trainer. Effect: The first time an Olympian switches to this trainer, e loses 3 popularity. When e attempts to cheat, e rolls a DICE12 instead of a DICE10.  Eir Popularity cannot rise above -3 when e has this Trainer; if any effect would cause em to have this Trainer and a Popularity above -3,  it becomes -3 instead.
*Star Trainer: An Olympian must have popularity above 5 to begin to use this trainer. Effect: An Olympian using this trainer may often spend 2N training points to increase eir popularity from N to N+1.  If any Olympian with this Trainer has a Popularity below 3, eir Trainer is set to Normal.

The cash element has been suggested from time to time, and everyone seemed to like the idea—the proposal just had other problems with it

Add a rule called “Money” to the ruleset that says:

Each Olympian has a certain amount of cash, tracked in the GNDT is a column called “Cash”

Cash is earned in the following ways:
*An Olympian may occasionally collect revenue with their sponsor. Revenue is equal to 100 Cash for each unit of popularity held at the time of the signing with the sponsor.
*If an Olympian receives a Gold Medal, e receives 200 Cash. If an Olympian receives a Silver Medal e receives 100 Cash. If an Olympian receives a Bronze Medal, e receives 50 cash. If the Blognomic team receives any kind of medal, everyone on that team receives 50 Cash.
*An Olympian may often attempt gamble eir Cash with another Olympian. To do so, e makes a comment of WAGER X Y DICE2, where X is the name of another Olympian who posses at least Y cash; and Y is an integer amount of cash possessed by both the Olympian attempting the wager and X. On a one, the first Olympian loses Y cash and the targeted Olympian gains Y cash. On a two, the first Olympian gains Y cash and the targeted Olympian loses Y cash.

Cash is spent in the following ways:
*An Olympian may often attempt to convert eir cash into TP by making a comment of “CONVERT X DICE3” where X is an integer amount of cash, and e posses at least X cash. If the result is 3, e receives X/100(rounded down) TP. If the result is a 2, e receives X/200(rounded down) TP. If the result is a one, e receives nothing.
*An Olympian may often give away eir cash to another Olympian. To do so, e reduces eir cash by an interger amount, and increases another Olympian’s cash by the same value.
*An Olympian may often spend 1000 cash to increase eir popularity by one point.

Add a subrule to said rule called “Sponsors”.

An Olympian may choose to sign with a sponsor so that e can each cash from that source. Sponsors are tracked in a column on the GNDT called “Sponsor”. When an Olympian signs with a Sponsor, e places eir current popularity in the Sponsor column. E can now occasionally earn cash based on that value as outlined above.

If an Olympian’s popularity ever drops greater than three below the popularity marked in eir sponsor column, the sponsor terminates the deal and eir Sponsor is reset to zero.

An Olympian may occasionally switch eir sponsor to eir current popularity. To do so, e must reduce eir current popularity by one, and put that new value in eir Sponsor column. E spend this popularity point if eir Sponsor is “0” or if eir current popularity is less than the value in the sponsor column.

Last idle out for real, holidays distracted and all that.