BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Shall we discuss?

Cause we all just want to belong.

.

Sorry, I’m just not finding this one any fun.

I have no-where near the intellect required to follow this dynasty.

Hopefully, I’ll be back for the next one.

to help end filibusters.

just to keep us all honest and whatnot

Not that it matters, but quorum rises to 9.

As a prepare to leave this assembly, I wish to express my sorrow that I was forced away from the assembly for a weekend, and suddenly find myself lost among the new format of voting. As such, I find myself in such a situation that I must depart, as I find I shall only hinder any progress this assembly may make. I also find that these new changes to the method of amendment of the Ruleset to be unnecessarily complex, as the Proposal procedure, which had been sacrosanct for so long, has always served us well. Suddenly, all that I had come to expect from this fine institution had been swept away. With this in mind, I leave you now to continue as you see fit, until I find it in my heart to return to these halls. Should anything happen to bring detriment to the institution known as Blognomic, I would like to make it known, that I shall not be culpable, for when the time came to choose an Emperor, my support lay with Hix.

I thank the Iudeces for their time.

P.S. I’d like to go idle.
P.P.S. Its “a Iudex,” not “an Iudex.” The “I” in Iudex is a consonant.

Add to the end of the Motions rule:

An Iudex may edit freely any Motion e has posted to the Motions Page if, and only if, such Motion has not been already seconded or marked as Lost.

In the rule “Motions”, replace

Debate closes whenever 24 hours has been passed since the time of its posting or its last comment, whichever is last.

with

Debate closes whenever 24 hours has been passed since the time of its posting or its last comment by an Iudex, whichever is last.

Disallowing multiple votes on a Motion.  This is obviously a pretty serious loophole, so please let’s pass this through quick-like.  In the meantime, curses upon anyone unscrupulous enough to abuse it.  Should anyone decide it’s serious enough to warrant fixing via Proposal, please also include a clause in said Proposal which makes this Motion LOST if it is not already Adopted.

As it currently stands, a Motion’s discussion ends 24 hours after the last comment is posted. However, there’s nothing stopping someone from posting a comment each day and prolonging a Motion indefinitely. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a player. Any random spammer, troll, or idle player could stop the entire Dynasty.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to fix this?

Motion to Substitute the Word Actor

Add to the end of the Motions rule:

An Iudex may edit freely any Motion e has posted to the Motions Page if, and only if, such Motion has not been seconded yet. A Motion that has been seconded or marked as Lost may not be edited, except as mandated by any of its subsidiary Motions. A Motion may not be edited by an Iudex other than its mover.

Whereas some Motions may be posted in an invalid format; and

whereas mal-formed Motions may hinder the playability of Blognomic, therefore,

I move the adoption of the following resolution, that any Iudex may edit the formatting of a Mal-Formed Motion to make it conform to the correct format. Any Motion so edited may have a special Subsidiary Motion named “Motion to Dismiss”, which only effect if adopted shall be mark its Main Motion as Lost.

Technically, 12 hours have not passed sense Chronos made his proposals, so they could not be passed.

If this CfJ passes, then the game will proceed as normal with proposals “Motions” and “Victory Conditions” remaining passed.
Elsewise “Motions” and “Victory Conditions” will instead be reset to pending and all actions taken as a result of these two rules will actually mean nothing(because the rule should’ve never passed).

The 12 hour rule is good, but I doubt anyone has shoving this under the rug—lets just make it official, ok?

Whereas the standing motion allowing for the formation of parties seems one of outstanding merit; and,

whereas a party standing for the absolute freedoms of all and the protection thereof is an excellent idea; and,

whereas those freedoms are often best protected through absurdity,

I therefore declare the creation of the Discordian party with myself as leader and if the motion for formation of parties should pass I will amend my account information, as soon as it exists, to display this fact.

PS.  I wrote in this style to practice for when I make motions, so let me know if it is the right style please.  If you could be so kind.

PPS. This is not a motion, it is simply a declaration, to make everyone aware of the party that I will be forming.

Whereas every Iudex has eir own agenda, and

whereas every agenda is supported by many Iudices; therefore

I move the adoption of the following resolution, A new text field will be entered into the GDNT with the title “Political Affiliation”. Any actor with this field blank is considered to have “No Political Affiliation”. An Iudex may change eir Political Affiliation Often, to either: (Party Name) Leader - as long as their exist no other Iudex with this Political Affiliation, or (Party Name) Member - as long as their exist an Iudex with the Political Affiliation (Party Name) Leader, where (Party Name) is replaced by any string.

I’m not entirely sure what I’m supposed to put in the body…so I put in the actual motion

I am here to play.

I don’t have a clue on how to change those. Can someone with a little bit more savoir faire with technology fix the title and change the colors to a grayish style, please?

UnIdle me please

Now that actors are no more… please unidle me!

If Proposal: Motions failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Create a rule named Victory Condition:

At any time, if an Iudex is the only Iudex able to make Motions, e has achieved Victory.

Create a Dynastic rule named Assembly:

The corpus of all Iudices shall be addressed as The Iudices Assembled.

Create a Wiki page named Motions

Create a Dynastic rule named Motions:

A motion may be made by an Iudex for the consideration of The Iudices Assembled. The Iudex making the Motion, known as the mover, shall create an entry in the page named [[Motions]] with the format “*[[Motion to (Subject) - ~~~~]]”.

The mover shall then proceed to describe, in the such created Motion Page, the effects e desires to come into existence should said Motion come to approval. The describing of the effects shall start with the phrase “I move the adoption of the following resolution,”

If it is desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they may be stated in a preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with “Whereas.”, preceding the “I move…” phrase. The preamble shall never contain a period, but each paragraph shall close with a comma or semicolon, followed by “and,” except the last paragraph, which shall close with the word “therefore,”.

Before a Motion can be taken into consideration by The Iudices Assembled, it shall be seconded by an Iudex, known as the seconder, other than the mover. The seconder shall register eir intention by noting it immediately under the Motion head in the Motions Page with an entry in the format “**[[Seconded by ~~~~]]”.

If 24 hours elapses since the making of a Motion before it is Seconded, that Motion shall be considered as Lost, and shall be signed so by appending the wording “(LOST)” to its head in the Motions Page.

Once a Motion has been seconded, its mover is entitled to start Debate on it. In order to do so, e shall post an entry to Blognomic’s main page, with the header “Debate on the Motion to (Subject) – (Date)”, where the (Date) shall be the same as the one stamped at its entry in the Motions Page.

If 24 hours elapses since the seconding of a Motion before its mover starts Debates on it, that Motion shall be considered as Lost, and shall be signed so by appending the wording “(LOST)” to its head in the Motions Page.

Once a Motion is in Debate, to assist in the proper disposal of the question, Subsidiary Motions may be used. A Subsidiary Motion shall be done only under another Motion, which becomes its Main Motion, and follows the same protocol of other Motions, with these exceptions:

* It must be posted immediately under the entry seconding the Main Motion’s head, or its last subsidiary Motion, with the format “**[[Motion to (Subject) - ~~~~]]”;
* A subsidiary Motion shall never be the Main Motion for other subsidiary Motions;
* All entries under a Subsidiary Motion shall have an extra “*” before its mandated format;
* Its describing shall start with “I move the Main Motion be amended as follows,” instead of the usual text for motions.

The seconding of a Subsidiary Motion interrupts Debate on its Main Motion, which shall be noted by the seconder as a comment to the Debate post reading only “Interrupted until appreciation of Secondary Motion to (Subject) – (Date)”, where the (Date) shall be the same as the one stamped at the Subsidiary’s entry in the Motions Page.

If no more Subsidiary Motions are pending to a Motion, any Iudex may restart Debate on that Motion by making a comment reading only “Debate Resumed”.

Debate closes whenever 24 hours has been passed since the time of its posting or its last comment, whichever is last. Comments interrupting Debate or resuming it shall not be considered for that purpose, neither shall be counted the time elapsed between such comments. When the Debate closes, any Iudex may sign so by making a comment to it reading only “Debate closed” and an entry in the Motions Page immediately under the entry seconding its Motion’s head, or its last subsidiary Motion, with the format “**[[Debate Closed—~~~~]]”.

Once Debate has closed on a Motion, any Iudex may declare eir vote on that Motion by making an entry in the Motions Page immediately under the “Debate Closed” entry on that Motion, with the format “**[[Aye—~~~~]]”, if e agrees with the Motion, or the Format “**[[No—~~~~]]”, if e doesn’t. The votes of the mover and the seconder are presumed to be Aye. If either the mover or the seconder of a Motion votes No on that Motion, that Motion is immediately Lost , and shall be signed so by appending the wording “(LOST)” to its head in the Motions Page.

A Motion shall be signed as Adopted if, and only if, all of these conditions are true:

* 24 hours has passed since its Debate has been closed;
* It has at least 3 Ayes;
* It has more Ayes than Noes.

A motion is signed as Adopted by appending the wording “(ADOPTED)” to its head in the Motions Page.

If 24 hours has passed since Debate has been closed on a Motion and that Motion cannot be Adopted, it is Lost , and shall be signed so by appending the wording “(LOST)” to its head in the Motions Page.

Once a subsidiary Motion is signed as Adopted, any changes it mandates into its Main Motion shall be made. Any other changes mandated by subsidiary Motions, i.e. all changes to things other than its Main Motion, shall be ignored.

Once a non-subsidiary Motion is signed as Adopted, the text “I move the adoption of the following resolution,” shall be substituted by “It is resolved by The Iudices Assembled that”. A sub-rule named after the (Subject) of the newly adopted Motion shall then be created under the dynastic sub-rule Adopted Motions, and the entire text of the newly adopted Motion shall be copied into that new sub-rule.

An Iudex cannot make a non-subsidiary Motion if e is the mover of another non-subsidiary Motion that has not been marked either as LOST or ADOPTED.

An Iudex cannot make a Subsidiary Motion if e is the mover of another Subsidiary Motion to the same Main Motion, even if that Subsidiary Motion has already been marked either as LOST or ADOPTED.

Create an empty Dynastic sub-rule to Motions named Adopted Motions.

We the The Iudices Assembled, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, wish to ordain and establish a Constitution.

Therefore, after a full communication of Sentiments, and deliberate consideration of what would be proper to be done by the Iudices now assembled; it was unanimously agreed: that a Committee be appointed to prepare a draft of such a Constitution.

Each Iudex produced the Credentials from eir constituencies and Mr. Chronos Phaenon was elected Arbiter Iuri.

Actors become Iudices (singular Iudex), the Investor becomes Arbiter Iuri. All Dynastic rules are repealed

Because of the main mechanics I want to see in this Dynasty, I’ll consistently veto Proposals to create or amend Dynastic rules. I’ll not veto Proposals that address the Core Rules unless I feel they are broken, of course.

Doodle and The Doctor are gone. Quorum is 7.

The results of the election seem clear, and I don’t really want to wait (almost) a week with nothing happening here.  Thus, a proposal to jump over a bunch of hurdles at once.

If Chronos Phaenon’s final vote on this proposal is against, it does nothing.

Otherwise, upon enactment of this proposal, Chronos Phaenon has achieved victory.
* Install Chronos as Investor
* Put the game into hiatus until eir Ascension Address, as if eir DoV had just passed (per the last paragraph of rule 1.9)

This post complies to Proposal: New Investor anyone? and rule 2.7 Election

As ChinDoGu, Angry Grasshopper and Excalabur falls down to idleness…

Looks like I don’t have the time for this after all.  Sorry, Please Idle me.

If Proposal: Idle Emperors Are the Devil’s Playground passed, this one does nothing.

If this Proposal timed out, it does nothing.

Upon the enactment of this proposal, the Admin enacting it shall make a post titled “ELECTION”

Add a dynastic rule Election:

The post titled “ELECTION” made by XXX at YY:YY is an official post. No other post with that title shall be an official post.

At any time before ZZ:ZZ, any Actor may nominate one, and only one, another Actor to become Investor. E does so by making a comment on the “ELECTION” Post where the only text is the name of the nominated Actor.

If an Actor makes more than one comment on the “ELECTION” Post where the only text is the name of another Actor, only the most recent of those Votes shall be construed as eir nomination.

Whichever Actor is the subject of the most counted nominations at ZZ:ZZ shall choose between achieving Victory or becoming the new Investor and continuing this Dynasty. In either case this rule shall be deleted.

If no Actor has the most counted nominations, then this rule shall be deleted with no further effect.

Change “XXX” in rule Election to the name of the Admin enacting this Proposal. Change “YY:YY” in rule Election to the timestamp of the “ELECTION” Post, in the Format “Hours:Minutes Year, Month, Day”. Change “ZZ:ZZ” in rule Election to the time equal YY:YY plus 96 hours, in the Format “Hours:Minutes Year, Month, Day”.

Add to rule 1.8:

If the current Investor becomes idle, any Administrator may make a proposal to demote the Investor to an Actor and hold an election to determine a new Investor. Because such an action would represent a major change in Gamestate, a quorum of FOR votes must be reached for the Proposal to be considered PASSED. If the proposal has been pending for longer than 48 hours and does not have a quorum of FOR votes, it shall be considered FAILED.

Upon the enactment of a proposal to replace an idle Investor, an Administrator shall make a post titled “ELECTION”. Within 96 hours of the enactment of a proposal to replace an idle Investor, any Actor may nominate a new Investor by making a Comment to the post titled “ELECTION”, stating “I nominate [Actor’s name] for Investor.” Only the latest nomination from each Actor shall be counted. Whichever Actor is the subject of the most counted nominations at the end of the 96 hour period shall be become the new Investor. E may choose to continue the current Dynasty, or e may choose to end the current Dynasty and begin a new one.

I made this proposal because I feel it is silly to have an Idle Investor and no way to remove em from power. Note that this proposal does not constitute a call to replace Doremi, I just think the option should be available.

I figured we might as well take advantage of what’s happening in the real world.

Change the following text of Rule 2.1 from

Each actor has a Filmography, which is stored in a wiki page called “Filmographies”. This is a list of the films that each Actor has starred in, the year of that film, and the role that they played in it.

Any film listed in a Filmography must exist on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com) and a link should be provided.

to

Each actor has a Filmography, which is stored in a wiki page called “Filmographies”. This is a list of the films in which the actor has had a role.

Any film listed in a Filmography must exist on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com) and each entry must include the following information:
* The name and year of the film.
* A link to the film’s entry on IMDB.
* The date the film was added to the Filmography (or an asterik if it is a Bonus film).
* Any status effects affecting the film (such as an Acclaimed role).

and the text

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if e has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-

to

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if e has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, though Bonus films are not affected by and do not count for this restriction.  The following restrictions also apply to all films added to a Filmography:

Add a new rule titled “A One Time Event” with the following text:

Only movies added to an Actor’s filmography before 2007 Feb 27 12:01 A.M. (GMT) count for the purposes of this Rule.

The 79th Academy Awards (hereafter “the AA”) will be held at approximately 1 A.M. on 2007 Feb 27.  For the following category, if an Actor has a role in a film that wins in that category in the AA, e gains 5 Fame.
* Best motion picture of the year

For each winner in the AA of the following categories, if an Actor has a film in eir Filmography that was directed by the winner, or if the winner was part of the cast of a film in the Actor’s filmography, the Actor gains 5 Fame.
* Performance by an actor in a leading role
* Performance by an actor in a supporting role
* Performance by an actress in a leading role
* Performance by an actress in a supporting role
* Achievement in directing

(If it’s not clear, an Actor can only gain 5 Fame per category, and thus the maximum Fame an Actor can gain from this rule is 25).

This Rule shall delete itself at 5 A.M. 2007 Mar 1.

When this proposal passes, each Actor may add 1 Bonus film to eir Filmography.

Malpractice suites force me to go idle.

If the Proposal: “Who’d bring rotten vegetables to a Theater?” fails, this proposal has no effect.
Change the text of Rule 2.6 Press Conference & After-Party from:

Whenever an Actor adds a film and ‘’’named role’’’ to eir own Filmography, e must make a GNDT comment of “PRESS DICE100” and then make a ‘’’Press Conference Post’’’ within 15 minutes, or else the addition of that film and role is considered invalid (as if it had never been made).

to:

Whenever an Actor adds a film and “named role” to eir own Filmography e may make a GNDT comment of “PRESS DICE100” and then post a single “Press Conference Post” within 15 minutes.  If e does not post a Press Conference then the role is changed from Unaclaimed to Tomatoed, unless another Actor has already added a “name role” from this film to eir Filmography.

This allows for people to choose not to post Press conferences and also to lay the groundwork for my “sharing the spotlight” idea.

Just thought I’d make an attempt at clarifying the basic rules, though I’ve snuck in a few minor changes as well.  I’d be happy to know what you guys think.

Modify the text of Rule 1.1 to read

This is the Ruleset for BlogNomic. Section One consists of the basic game mechanics; Section Two contains the rules of the current dynasty; and Section Three contains the glossary, which exists solely to clarify the remainder of the ruleset. Rules may be referred to by their type and entire number or type and name. (e.g. This Rule may be referred to as Rule 1.1 or the Rule entitled “Ruleset and Gamestate”).

The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.  This document is only a reflection of the current Ruleset; changes made to this document do not alter the Ruleset .

No Rule may contain a provision that bars itself from being altered and/or repealed. If at any moment a Rule exists or is altered in a manner that renders it to contain such a provision, the entirety of that Rule shall be considered void and with no effects on the Gamestate. The provisions on this paragraph supersede any text in a Rule.

Spivak pronouns, as defined in the Glossary, shall be used whenever the Ruleset refers to an Actor.

Modify the text of Rule 1.2 to read

Each participant in BlogNomic, or Actor, must obey the Ruleset.  Anybody may apply to join BlogNomic (if e is not already playing) by registering at http://blognomic.com via the Register link in the sidebar, and then making a post announcing eir arrival. Upon eir addition to the roster in the sidebar in the main page, e becomes an Actor.

An Actor may leave the game at any time by posting an entry to the BlogNomic weblog requesting such an action.

An Actor may not create multiple accounts to participate in BlogNomic.

Add a Subrule to Rule 1.2 titled “Player Status” with the following text:

An Actor may have one or more of the following status effects:
* Admin: Admins are responsible for updating the site and the Ruleset, and are signified as such in the sidebar.  An Admin may make corrections to obvious spelling and typographical errors in this document at any time.

* Idle: For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules 1.1 and 1.2, Idle Actors are not counted as Actors. Admins may render an Actor Idle upon that Actor’s request, or if that Actor has not posted a entry or comment for more than 7 days. Admins may de-Idle a Actor at eir request - the Actor’s personal gamestate retains the values it had immediately prior to eir going Idle. If one or more values would be undefined, it is set to the value new Actors receive, if such a value exists.

* Investor: The Actor responsible for the theme of the current game of BlogNomic.

Modify the text of rule 1.4 to read

Any Actor may cast eir Vote on a Pending Proposal by making a comment on that entry using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST or DEFERENTIAL.

If the Actor who made a Proposal has not cast a Vote on it, eir Vote is counted as FOR. If an Actor casts more than one Vote on a Proposal, only the most recent of those Votes is counted. If an Actor leaves the game or goes Idle, eir Vote no longer counts. If an Actor votes AGAINST eir own Proposal, that vote may not be changed.

The Investor may choose to cast a VETO in the place of the normal vote choices.

A vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Investor. The vote will count as the same as the Investor’s vote. The Investor cannot cast a vote of DEFERENTIAL. If the Investor does not cast a vote of FOR or AGAINST, or there is no Investor, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of Abstention.

Change the text of rule 1.5 to read

The oldest Pending Proposal may be resolved by any Admin if any of the following criteria are met:
* The Proposal has either a number of FOR votes or a number of AGAINST votes greater than half the number of Actors.
* The Proposal has been open for voting for at least 48 hours.
* No comment or vote has been made on the Proposal for at least 24 hours.
* The Actor making the Proposal has voted AGAINST it, or the Investor has cast a VETO on the Proposal.

Upon resolution, the Proposal’s status shall be changed to Failed if any of the following are true:
* Half or fewer of the votes (not counting Abstentions) are FOR the Proposal.
* Fewer than two votes have been cast on the Proposal.
* The Actor making the Proposal has voted AGAINST it.
* The Investor has cast a VETO on the Proposal.

Otherwise, the Proposal’s status shall be changed to Enacted, and the changes to the Ruleset or Gamestate described in the Proposal made.  A Proposal has no power until it is Enacted (and thus cannot delineate the process of its own Enactment).

The Admin resolving the Proposal shall mark eir name, as well as the criteria under which the Proposal was resolved.

Change the text of rule 1.6 to read

If there is a disagreement regarding the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if an aspect of the game requires urgent attention, any Actor may raise a call for Judgment by posting an entry in the “call for Judgment” category.  If the Actor wishes, e may post anonymously by choosing “Call for Judgment” from the Author drop-down menu on the OPTIONS tab. The post shall go on to describe the issue, and measures that shall be taken to resolve it.

The Call for Judgment is voted upon and resolved like a Proposal, except that the maximum time limit is 72 hours rather than 48 hours.  If more than half of the cast votes are FOR the Call for Judgment, the Gamestate and Ruleset shall be amended as was specified.  If not, the Call for Judgment is Failed and has no further effect.

Modify the text in Rule 1.9 to read

If an Actor (other than the Investor) believes that e has achieved victory in the current Dynasty, e may make a post to the Blognomic weblog in the Declaration of Victory category detailing this.

While there is an active Declaration of Victory, the only game actions that may be taken are those covered by Rules 1.2, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9.

Every Actor may respond to an active Declaration of Victory saying whether or not e believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons).

The oldest Declaration of Victory may be resolved after 24 hours, or after 12 hours if the Investor has voted on it. Upon resolution, if at least half of the Actors have cast a vote, and more than half of the votes are FOR the Declaration of Victory, it passes.

When a Declaration of Victory passes, all other active Declarations of Victory are failed, and a new game of BlogNOmic begins with the Actor who made the Declaration of Victory as its Investor and all current Dynastic Rules repealed. (That Actor may pass this role to another Actor at this point, if they wish.) The new game shall be named by the name of the Investor and the number of games of BlogNomic e has headed (e.g. “The First Dynasty of Myke”).

No Proposals can be made until the new Investor posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify the Investor’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally include any of the following:
* A Proposal.  This Proposal may only add Dynastic Rules and automatically passes unless 60% or more of the votes are AGAINST it.
* A term to replace all instances of the word “Actor” in the Ruleset.
* A term to replace all instances of the word “Investor” in the Ruleset.

Delete Rule 1.8.

Delete Rule 3.3.

When this Proposal is Enacted, if a Rule is mentioned in 4 or more counted FOR votes for this Proposal, the proposed changes to that Rule shall not be effected.

Everyone remember that you now have a single gossip story and it could affect how you do things (such as myself getting diverced and having to change locations)

Remove the phrase “and any role that is not an Acclaimed Role is an Unacclaimed Role” from Critic Acclaim

Add to the end of the main text of Critics:

For any purposes any role in an Actor’s Filmography that is neither an Acclaimed Role nor a Tomatoed Role is an Unacclaimed Role.

Add a sub-rule Rotten Tomatoes to Critics

An Actor is “Tomatoed” if both of the following conditions are true:
- e is not, at that time, disqualified from earning a Tomato, and
- e makes a Proposal that passes, but both Critics vote “AGAINST” the Proposal (or cast votes that have the effect of votes AGAINST the Proposal).
Upon an Actor earning a “Tomato”, e must select a role in eir Filmography and add the text “Tomatoed” to eir Filmography in reference to that role. This action is defined as earning a Tomato with respect to that role. A role that has earned Tomato is defined as a Tomatoed Role. An Actor may not earn a Tomato more than once with respect to a particular role. An Actor may not earn a Tomato for a film in which e was an Extra.
An Actor is disqualified from earning a Tomato for so long as any of the following are true:
- there are fewer than two Critics, or
- e has no Unacclaimed Roles in eir Filmography.

Change the following text of the Rule Filmography:

If the proposal “Making Movies…BACK IN TIME!” has passed:

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if he has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-
A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three films.
A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three films.

Otherwise:

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if he has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-
A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

to:

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if he has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-
A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three films with earlier release dates.
A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three films with earlier release dates.
No film released before the year 1927 may be added, as an actor’s career would not realistically extend past their 80th birthday.

Within four days of this proposal passing, all Actors must edit their filmographies to abide by the new rules by replacing non-legal movies with legal ones. After this period, all roles not abiding by the new ruleset will be removed.

I am doing this to see how many people would like to see this game be realistic. I understand that this affects only a very few Actors, but this is based on principal. I do not mean to single out individual Actors.

Quorum remains at 10.

Just wanted to point out that now that some Actors have Filmography roles other than “Extra”, which means that those Actors can conceivably earn Critical Acclaim.

Description of problem: some Actors have added roles that are against the current rules.

Proposed solution:
Remove all roles from Actors’ filmographies that violate either of the clauses:

* A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
* A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

If “Making Movies… BACK IN TIME” has passed, however, do not remove any roles that were added after it was enacted.

Actors whose roles have been removed to may add one valid role (per deleted role) as if it had been added at the same time as the deleted role (including the state of the rules).  If any Actor adds a role per the regular rules of the game, e forfeits eir right to replace any remaining deleted role.

Change the following text of the Rule Filmography:

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if e has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-
A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

to:

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if e has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-
A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three films.
A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three films.

Because it just makes everyone’s lives easier

Create a new rule “Character Assassination”:

If an Actor has not added a named role to eir filmography or sabotaged an Actor’s image during the last week and is in the same location as another Actor (“the target”), they may sabotage the target’s public image, reducing the target’s fame by 10. To do this, they shall make a post declaring the action, and shall edit the GNDT within five minutes, reflecting the change.

This rule change is intended to “give teeth” to Actor rivalries.

In rule 1.5 Enactment, add to the bulleted list under “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:”:

* The only change to happen to the Ruleset or Gamestate upon its enactment would be the changing of its Status from Pending to Enacted.

Another try. I think the reason this Dynasty has failed to gather momentum was, in part, the long time it took to make real game rules. This Proposal is intended to make it possible to speed the queue a little. I‘m unable to see how allowing a Proposal to be failed earlier could lead to abuses. If you can see a way, please enlighten me about that.

In Rule 2.7 replace the text

Whenever an Actor adds a film and ‘’’named role’’’ to eir own Filmography, e must make a GNDT comment of “PRESS DICE100” and then make a ‘’’Press Conference Post’’’ within 15 minutes, or else the addition of that film and role is considered invalid (as if it had never been made).

with

Whenever an Actor adds a film and ‘’’named role’’’ to eir own Filmography, e must make a GNDT comment of “PRESS DICE100” and then make a ‘’’Press Conference Post’’’ within 15 minutes, or else the addition of that film and role is considered invalid (as if it had never been made) and is deleted from the Filmography page by an Administrator.

This proposal intends to remove the Filmography entry in question if an Actor fails to hold a Press Conference concerning its existence. This avoids confusion over what is valid and what is not.

Change the following text of rule 2.6:

When an Actor makes a Press Conference Post, if the reported DICE100 result is less than or equal to half of eir Fame, then e becomes the subject of the first Gossip Story named in comments to the post by another Actor (as soon as such a comment is made). If the result is greater than half of eir Fame, the post is also considered an ‘’’After Party Post’’’, and the author of the post is its Host.

to read:

When an Actor makes a Press Conference Post, if the reported DICE100 result is less than or equal to half of eir Fame, then e becomes the subject of the first Gossip Story named in comments to the post by another Actor (as soon as such a comment is made). If the result is less than half eir fame and less than 10, e also loses 20 fame. If the result is greater than half of eir Fame, the post is also considered an ‘’’After Party Post’’’, and the author of the post is its Host.

This rule change would represent a movie so undeniably bad that it not only generates bad press, it also makes directors think twice before casting the actor again.

Change the following text of rule 2.6:

When an Actor makes a Press Conference Post, if the reported DICE100 result is less than or equal to half of eir Fame, then e becomes the subject of the first Gossip Story named in comments to the post by another Actor (as soon as such a comment is made). If the result is greater than half of eir Fame, the post is also considered an ‘’’After Party Post’’’, and the author of the post is its Host.

to read:

When an Actor makes a Press Conference Post, if the reported DICE100 result is less than or equal to half of eir Fame, then e becomes the subject of the first Gossip Story named in comments to the post by another Actor (as soon as such a comment is made). If the result is less than half eir fame and less than 10, e also loses 20 fame. If the result is greater than half of eir Fame, the post is also considered an ‘’’After Party Post’’’, and the author of the post is its Host.

This rule change would represent a movie so undeniably bad that it not only generates bad press, it also makes directors think twice before casting the actor again.

I (The Doctor) goes idle.

It seems that many Actors (e.g. Josh) are violating a clause in Rule 2.1:

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if e has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-
A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

He appears as an Extra in three films to be sure, but they are not earlier than the film in which he appears as the Nth Generic Character. Is this legal?

After years languishing in straight-to-video sequels, a series of witty cameos have propelled Tesla4D and Snowballinhell7001 back to superstardom. Quorum rises to 10.

My walkabout is done. I am willing to return spiritually enlightened.
Please de-idle me.

I know that my last appearance here was a spectacular failure, but I now have reliable internet access. I’d like it if an admin could please add me to the GNDT, please.
Thanks, peace,
Sean

In rule 1.5 Enactment, add to the buleted list under “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:”:

* It would do no changes to the Ruleset or Gamestate if enacted.

I intend with this to allow Admins to fail Proposals contingent on conditions that are already false.

alethiophile, Combustable and Doremi are Idle. Quorum falls to 10.

This dynasty really hasn’t gotten going for me. I tried for a while, but really have never found my groove. So I’m going idle until the next one starts.

Clucky

Change the text of the first paragraph of Press to the following:

Each Actor may be the subject of up to two “Press Stories”, summarized as phrases in the “Press” field of the GNDT, and separated by an “and” if there are two of them. Whenever an Actor becomes the subject of a new Press Story, it is added to the end of the list; if this would result in three Press Stories for a single Actor, the first is forgotten, and deleted.  Every Actor starts with a random Gossip Story, chosen by a rolling DICEX, where X is the current number of Gossip Stories.  The Actor then counts down from the available stories and adds to eir Gossip category on GNDT the story corresponding to the number rolled.

Add a random gossip story to every actor using the described technique.

(This is not intended to be a proposal, just a discussion idea)

I’m considering a Proposal to change the “Location” rule so as to add game effects to particular Locations.  I’m looking for ideas: I figure that Mumbai is an easy one: an Actor in Mumbai can only add a film to his Filmography if it is a musical (including Bollywood movies, regular adaptations of Broadway shows, Disney musicals and animated musicals, etc.)  Tokyo might be limited to only science fiction, fantasy, monster and horror films.  Machu Picchu might be linked somehow to Cult-woshipping (i.e., you can’t get in there or out of there unless you have Cult-worshipping as a gossip story, for example).  Any ideas?

Add a new rule, entitled “Paparazzi”:

The location of the Paparazzi is tracked in the GNDT. All Actors in the same location as the Paparazzi temporarily gain 1 Fame; this fame is lost when the Paparazzi move to a new location. The Paparazzi may have their location changed by any Actor at any time, so long as any one of the following conditions are met:

*The Paparazzi can always be moved to a location where an Actor has gained a Gossip Story in the last 24 hours;
*The Paparazzi can always be moved to the location that corresponds with the current day of the week:
LA - Monday
New York - Tuesday
Tokyo - Wednesday
Mumbai - Thursday
Vancouver - Friday
Hong Kong - Saturday
Machu Picchu - Sunday
*The Paparazzi may be moved to any location, so long as it has not been moved within the previous 24 hours.

However, moving the Paparazzi may never violate one of the following restrictions:

*The Paparazzi may never be in Liverpool
*The Paparazzi may never be moved to the same location as the Actor who moved them there

Set the Paparazzi up in the GNDT and set their location to LA. Adjust the fame of all Actors in LA accordingly.

Please idle me; bonus points for a good idling story.

Though I realize that on its own, having to go through the templates and GNDT to idle is already a fair bit of work.

If the proposal “Doctors Orders” Fails this does nothing.

Otherwise;

The First Actor (other than Doremi) to post a entry in the Weblog, after this proposal passes, shall have achieved victory. E may then post a Declaration of Victory to that affect. If it passes, only Doremi shall Admin this proposal.

If this proposal passes, Doremi immediately becomes an Admin.

Oscars III
If either “Oscars” or “Oscars II” passed, this proposal does nothing.

Add a rule “Academy Awards”

On Sunday, February 25, the First Weekly Academy Awards shall be held, and subsequent Academy Awards shall be held each Sunday thereafter.  When the Academy Awards are held, the President of the Academy shall determine the outcome of the Awards, post them to the main page, and updating any gamestate.

President of the Academy
——————————

The current President of the Academy is “X”.  Any Actor may update this rule to indicate the current President of the Academy.  If the current President of the Academy has failed to fulfill eir duties as described in this rule, any Actor may take over the position by changing this rule.  Within 15 minutes of taking over the position in this way, the President of the Academy must make a post that details the previous President’s indiscretions and states that e has been impeached.  Note that if a new President doesn’t make this post, e has then failed to fulfill eir duties, and is thus subject to impeachment.

Eligibility
—————

A role is considered “Eligible” for an Academy Award if it was added to an Actor’s Filmography since the previous Academy Awards.

Awards
—————

Each time the Academy Awards is held, the following awards shall be determined:

* Best Actor in a Supporting Role: The President of the Academy shall roll DICEY, where “Y” is the number of Eligible minor character roles on the Filmographies page.  E shall then count that many eligible minor character roles from the top of the page to determine the appropriate role (A roll of 1 selects the first eligible minor character role, 2 the second, etc.).  The Actor who held that role gains 3 Fame.

* Best Actor in a Leading Role: The Actor who has the highest Press Conference roll for an eligible role gains 5 Fame.

* Best Picture: The President picks a random eligible role in the same manner as described in “Best Actor in a Supporting role” for eligible minor character roles.  All Actors who had a role in the selected film gain Fame based on the level of role that they had: Extras gain 1 Fame, Minor characters gain 2 Fame, and Named characters gain 3 Fame.

All posts with counted votes should nominate zero or more Actors to be the initial President of the Academy.  “X” shall be replaced by the name of Actor that recieves the most nominations.  In the case of a tie, the admin who processes this proposal may choose any of the Actors in the tie.

I nominate myself and all other active Actors.

If a rule entitled “Gossip” exists, and if that rule contains a list of “Gossip Stories”, then add the following to the list of “Gossip Stories”:

* Crusader.  So long as an Actor is the subject of the Gossip Story “Crusader”, that Actor may not add any particular Film to eir Filmography unless at least one of the following is true with respect to that Film: (i) the Film’s title contains one or more of the words “Jesus”, “Christ” or “God”; (ii) the imdb.com information for that film states that among the roles cast for that Film is a role called “Jesus”, “Jesus Christ”, “God”, “Moses”, “Rosemary Woodhouse”, “Damien”, or “Regan Teresa MacNeil”; or (iii) the imdb.com information for that film states that Mel Gibson appeared in, or directed, that Film.  An Actor that is the subject of “Crusader” may not be a Guest of an After Party if the Host of that After Party is the subject of “Cult-worshipping”.

If Proposal: Gossip Gets Around didn’t pass, this Proposal does nothing.

Rename rule Gossip to Press, and rewrite it, so it reads:

Each Actor may be the subject of up to two “Press Stories”, summarized as phrases in the “Press” field of the GNDT, and separated by an “and” if there are two of them. Whenever an Actor becomes the subject of a new Press Story, it is added to the end of the list; if this would result in three Press Stories for a single Actor, the first is forgotten, and deleted.

A Story may be either “Gossip” or “Good Press”. Each Press Story has a Name, one or more Categories they effect(Fame, Location, Filmography or Miscellaneous) and an Effect.  An Actor that is the subject of any given Press Story is considered under it’s effect.  If an Actor is subject to more than one Press Story that overlap, that Actor is only subject to one of those stories, whichever is listed first in the GDNT.  Stories are considered overlapping if they have at least one Category that is the same.

Rename the GNDT Field Gossip to Press.

Remove the first paragraph from Gossip Stories, Categories and Effects.

Rewrite Jealousy, so it reads:

An Actor may occasionally make another Actor the subject of a gossip story, provided eir fame is strictly less than the fame of the target Actor and the target Actor has not been target of Jealousy in the last 48 hours.

Add a sub-rule Self-Promoting to the Press rule:

An Actor may occasionally make eirself the subject of a Good Press Story, provided eir fame is strictly greater than 30 and e reduces eir fame by 10%, rounding the resulting fame down.

Add a sub-rule Good Press, Categories and Effects to the Press rule:

Available Good Press Stories, their Categories, and Effects are listed belows in the following format:

*Good Press Story[Categories, separated by comas]: Effect

*Childhood band tour [Location]: The Actor under this Story may often change eir Location, even if otherwise not allowed to.
*African child adoption [Fame]: The Actor under this Story may often increase eir fame by 5%, rounded down.
*Indie film [Filmography]: An Actor under this story may wait one day less before adding a Film to eir Filmography.
*Government criticism [Miscellaneous]: The Actor under this Story may be target of Jealousy once every 4 days, if e has not been a target of Jealousy in the last 24 hours. The Actor under this Story may occasionally make eirself the subject of a Good Press Story once every 4 days, provided eir fame is strictly greater than 30 and e reduces eir fame by 10%, rounding the resulting fame down and e has not done so in the last 24 hours.
*Underwear line [Fame]: If an Actor under this story is a Host or a Guest to an After Party, e gains double the Fame e would gain.
*Hometown festival [Location]: The Actor under this Story may often change the Location of another Actor, even if otherwise not allowed to, so it becomes the same Location as eirself.
*UN Goodwill Ambassador [Fame]: When an Actor becomes subject to this story, e must roll a GOODWILL DICE20. Whenever an Actor under this Story gains fame, e gains X% extra Fame, rounded down, where X is the result of the Goodwill roll.
*Living in Britain [Location]: The Actor under this Story may change eir Location to Liverpool at any time.
*Sitcom cameo [Fame]: The Actor under this Story may roll a “PRESS DICE120” (instead of a DICE100) when making a Press Conference Post. E must use its result wherever the rules call for the result of the PRESS DICE100.

Add “*Liverpool – Hometown of the Beatles” to the list of available Locations. Add to Location:

An Actor may not change eir location to Liverpool unless otherwise allowed to by a Rule other than this,

Make Charity Work a sub-rule to Press.

A counted vote to this Proposal may name one or more Good Press Stories. If a Story is named in four or more of the counted votes to this Proposal, it shall be deleted from Good Press Stories, Categories and Effects.

Sorry for a Proposal so long, but I couldn’t make it shorter

Scaramouche is Idle, quorum is still 12.

If Proposal: Gossip Gets Around didn’t pass, this Proposal does nothing.

Add to Gossip Stories, Categories and Effects:

* Drunk [Fame]: An Actor under this story does not count as a Guest at an After Party.  If an Actor under this story is a Host to an After Party, e and all Guests gain double Fame.
* Alcoholic [Filmography]: An Actor under this story must wait an extra day before adding a Film to eir Filmography.
* Philandering [Fame]: Whenever an Actor under this story is a Host or a Guest at an After Party, all Fame at that party is halved (rounded down).
* Sex-addicted [Fame]: When an Actor under this story is a Guest at an After Party e do not count as a Guest for the purposes of determining Fame. An Actor under this story gains only 1 point of Fame at an After Party, regardless of the Fame of the Host.
* Kleptomaniac [Fame, Filmography]: An Actor under this story that is a Guest at an After Party gains 1 extra Fame, and the Host of that Party gains 1 less fame (this can reduce/increase the fame beyond its maximum/minimum,).  An Actor under this story cannot take a Named Role.
* Paternity-suited [Fame]: An Actor under this story does not count as a Guest at an After Party.  When an Actor under this story is a Host of an After Party, only e gain Fame from that After Party, and no Guest gains Fame.
* Cult-worshipping [Location]: If this Actor Hosts an After Party, only Actors at the same Location as em may be Guests to that Party.
* Divorced [Location]: An Actor under must always be at the Location with the least number of other Actors. If the Location with the least number of Actors changes, the Actor must change Location, even if e otherwise would not be allowed to change Locations. In the event of a tie, the Actor under this story can choose between the tied Locations.
* Eccentric [Filmography]: When adding a Film to eir Filmography, an Actor under this story must make a ROLE DICE10 roll. If the roll comes up between 1 and 6, e must add an Extra Role. If it comes up between 7 and 9, e must add a “Nth Minor Character” Role, and on a 10 e must add a named Role. The role mandated by this roll must be added even if that would not be allowed by the “Filmographies” rule.

A counted vote to this Proposal may name one or more Gossip Stories. If a Story is named in four or more of the counted votes to this Proposal, it shall be deleted from Gossip Stories, Categories and Effects.

This intentionally allows you to post counted votes to delete Glory-Hound, Right-Wing and Left-Wing if you wish so

Replace 2.3 Gossip with the following:

2.3 Gossip

Each Actor may be the subject of up to two “Gossip Stories”, summarized as adjective-phrases in the “Gossip” field of the GNDT, and separated by an “and” if there are two of them. Whenever an Actor becomes the subject of a new Gossip Story, it is added to the end of the list; if this would result in three Gossip Stories for a single Actor, the first is forgotten, and deleted.

2.3.1Gossip Stories, Categories and Effects

Each Gossip Story has a Name, one or more Categories they effect(Fame, Location or Filmography) and an Effect.  An Actor that is the subject of any given Gossip Story is considered under it’s effect.  If an Actor is subject to more than one Gossip Story that overlap, that Actor is only subject to one of those stories, whichever is listed first in the GDNT.  Stories are considered overlapping if they have at least one Category that is the same.

Available Gossip Stories, their Categories, and Effects are listed belows in the following format:

*Gossip Story[Catagories, seperated by comas]: Effect

*Glory Hound[Fame, Location]: An Actor under the effect of this story must change Locations so that e has the highest Fame in eir Location.  If the Actor is unable to move to a Location where e has the highest Fame, all Fame e gains is reduced by half (rounded up).  If the Actor has the highest Fame in eir location then all Fame gained at any Party e is the Host of is Doubled.

*Left-Wing[Filmography]: An Actor under this effect may only add a film to eir Filmography in which another Actor under this story has already added to eir Filmography, though the roles may be different.  If no other Actor has this story, it has no effect.  An Actor may not be Subject to this story and Right-Wing at the same time.

*Right-Wing[Filmography]: An Actor under this effect may only add a film to eir Filmography in which another Actor under this story has already added to eir Filmography, though the roles may be different.  If no other Actor has this story, it has no effect. An Actor may not be Subject to this story and Left-Wing at the same time.

2.3.2 Jealousy
An Actor may occasionally make another Actor the subject of a gossip story, provided eir fame is strictly less than the fame of the Actor who will be the subject of the gossip story.

I’m proposing this to see if people like the idea of how Gossip Stories effect you, and to allow other people to come up with ideas of what effects different stories might have (and to add new stories, or removed old ones if they wish. Added Glory Hound because I liked that one, and Right/Left Wing so that it wouldn’t mess with the Critic Rule.

Add a new rule call “Rewriting the Record Books”

  An Actor with positive fame may often attempt to swap one of the films in eir filmography with one of the films in another Actor fimography, provided the following are true:
  1) The roles in to two films e is attempting to swap are the same(An extra for an extra, an nth minor character for an nth minor character…)
  2) Neither of the roles in question have earned Critical Acclaim.

  To attempt a swap, an actor first roles a DICE3. If the roll is a one, the swap is successful and e can enact any legal swap on the filmographies page. If the roll is a two, nothing happens. If the roll is a three, the Actor rolling the die is exposed in eir failed attempt, and e loses one fame point.

Who could that be, hanging out with the ‘It’ crowd? A fresh new face? Why, that’s Seebo, of course! I loved that thing he was in, with those guys.

Quorum remains at 12.

If this proposal passes Hix and Chronos Phaenon cease to be critics.

Any counted vote for or against this proposal may contain up to 2 nominations for critics.  These nominations may not be for the same person and they may not be for the Actor posting the coment. 

When this proposal is admined, the 2 actors with the most votes become critics.  In the event of a tie, the admin admining this proposal should make a dice role in the gndt to determine which actors become critics.

Cosmologicon is Idle. Quorum is still 12.

Ceteris paribus, Scaramouche will be Idled tomorrow.

If “Oscars” passes, this proposal does nothing.
If The Doctor’s final vote on this proposal is `:AGAINST:’, it does nothing.

Add new Rule “Oscars”:

When any Actor adds a named role to eir Filmography, e may make a DICEX roll where X equals the maximum value fame can be set to. If the roll is strictly less than eir fame, the Actor gains an Oscar. Each time an Actor gains an Oscar, the number of Oscars e has, tracked in the GNDT column “Oscars”, is increased by 1.  If fame is unbounded, no Oscar rolls may be attempted.  New Actors start with 0 Oscars.

Set each actor to 0 Oscars.

I thought this was a good idea, and The Doctor can’t make a new proposal for a little while, so I shamelessly copied it.  Also, I vote this, just to make things clear.

One of my friends told me I just *had* to check this out, and it does look really interesting! Might I join in the fun? :P

Add new Rule “Oscars”;

When any Actor stars in a film (has “A named role that appears in the IMDB credits of the film”) shown in eir Filmography e may make a DICEX roll where X equals the maximum value fame can be set to. If the roll is strictly less than eir fame, the Actor gains an Oscar. Each time an Actor gains an Oscar the number of Oscars e has, tracked in the GNDT colum “Oscars”, is increased by 1.

Add a new rule call “Rewriting the Record Books”

An Olympian with positive fame may often attempt to swap one of the films in eir filmography with one of the films in another Olympians fimography, provided the following are true:
1) The roles in to two films e is attempting to swap are the same(An extra for an extra, an nth minor character for an nth minor character…)
2) Neither of the roles in question have earned Critical Acclaim.

To attempt a swap, an actor first roles a DICE3. If the roll is a one, the swap is successful and e can enact any legal swap on the filmographies page. If the roll is a two, nothing happens. If the roll is a three, the olympian rolling the die is exposed in eir failed attempt, and e loses one fame point.

Proposed new dynastic rule: “Academy Awards”, as follows:

An Actor achieves Victory if e is in possession of at least three Oscars and e posts a Declaration of Victory.

Add a subrule to Fame entitled “Victory”:

If, through the normal course of play, the rules direct an Actor’s Fame score to be set to a higher value than the maximum allowed, it shall be set to the maximum value, and that Actor wins the dynasty if e then posts a Declaration of Victory within 48 hours of said occurence.

This seems to be what we’re working towards, so let’s go ahead and put it in the rules.  Unless being famous shouldn’t be the ultimate goal?

Create a new Sub-rule of Fame with the text:

Sharing the Spotlight:
When an Actor adds a Named role to eir Filmography from a Film which another Actor has already added a Named Role from, the Actor adding the Role gains 2 fame, and the Actor who already had the Role loses 2 Fame.  The Actor adding the role does not post a Press Conference thread and no other Actor may add a Role from that film.

Snowball is idle. Quorum drops to 12.

I’m in a kind of funk and need to be idled for the next week or so.

If the Proposal titled “Leading Roles (might) Make you Famous v2” fails this proposal has no effect.

Replace 2.3 Gossip with:

Each Actor may be the subject of up to two “Gossip Stories”, summarised as adjective-phrases in the “Gossip” field of the GNDT, and separated by an “and” if there are two of them. Whenever an Actor becomes the subject of a new Gossip Story, it is added to the end of the list; if this would result in three Gossip Stories for a single Actor, the first is forgotten, and deleted.  The Actor is considered to be under the effect of the First story listed in eir Gossip Column.

Available Gossip Stories, and their effects are:-
* Glory Hound: An Actor under this story cannot be in the same Location as an Actor with more Fame than em.  If ey are, then ey must change locations immediatly, if able, otherwise ey must change locations at the soonest possible time.  If an Actor under this story cannot be in a location where ey have the highest Fame, the Fame ey gain at an After Party is halved.  An Actor under this story posting a Press Conference will always have an After Party, whether or not a gossip story is created.

* Drunk: An Actor under this story must wait an extra day before adding a Film to eir Filmography.  An Actor under this story cannot be the subject of Jealousy.

* Alcoholic: An Actor under this story does not count as a Guest at an After Party.  If an Actor under this story is a Host to an After Party, ey and all Guests gain double Fame.

* Philandering: Whenever an Actor under this story is a Host or a Guest at an After Party, all Fame at that party is halved (rounded down).

* Sex-addicted: When an Actor under this story is a Guest at an After Party ey do not count as a Guest for the purposes of determining Fame.  An Actor under this story gains only 1 point of Fame at an After Party, regardless of the Fame of the Host.

* Right-wing: An Actor under this story adding a Film to eir Filmography ey must check to see if another Actor is under this story.  If so, the Film added must be a Film which another Actor under this Story has been in, and the Role must be the same as the Role as that Actor.  During an After Party hosted by an Actor under this story, every Guest at this party under this story counts twice for the purposes of determining Fame.

* Left-wing: An Actor under this story adding a Film to eir Filmography ey must check to see if another Actor is under this story.  If so, the Film added must be a Film which another Actor under this Story has been in, and the Role must be the same as the Role as that Actor. During an After Party hosted by an Actor under this story, every Guest at this party under this story counts twice for the purposes of determining Fame.

* Kleptomaniac: An Actor under this story that is a Guest at an After Party gains 1 extra Fame, and the Host of that Party gains 1 less fame (this can reduce/increase the fame beyond its maximum/minimum,).  An Actor under this story cannot take a Named Role.

* Paternity-suited: An Actor under this story does not count as a Guest at an After Party.  When an Actor under this story is a Host of an After Party, only ey gain Fame from that After Party, and no Guests gain Fame.

* Cult-worshipping: This story has no effect by itself, but it amplifies other stories.

* Divorced: An Actor under this story must change their Location to be the one with least number of other Actors.  If the Location with the least number of Actors changes, the Actor must change locations.  In the event of a tie, the Actor under this story can choose between Locations. An Actor under this story gains may occasionally move another Actor to a different location.

* Eccentric: An Actor under this story must roll ROLE DICE3 when adding a Film to eir Filmography.  On a roll of a 1 ey must add an Extra Role, On a 2 ey must add a Minor Role, and on a 3 ey must add a Major Role.  When an Actor under this story post a Press Conference ey never have an After Party, and instead gain 3 points of Fame.

I’m sure there are several problems with the proposal as is, because it is late, but I’m more interested to know if people like the idea, and what changes they’d like to see made.  So, let me know what would need to be changed if you want this be passed, or if you have alternative effects.  I tried to have each gossip story give you a benefit and a penalty.

“Do you believe the voice?” - Dr. Werber (from The X-files, Season 1, Episode 3)

Add subrule 2.3.2 “Cults” to rule 2.3 “Gossip””

If an Actor has “Cult-worshipping” as one gossip story and also has another gossip story active simultaneously, then e may choose to have the gossip story “Cult-worshipping” changed to one of the following, based what the second gossip story is:

- “Cult-worshipping” and “Pretentious”: Member of “Fiat Ego” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Alcoholic”: Member of “Friends of Jack Daniels” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Alcoholic”: Member of “Intimate Friends of Jack Daniels” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Philandering”: Member of “Order of Don Juan” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Sex-addicted”: Member of “Sexholic Army” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Right-wing”: Member of the “Opus Reagani” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Left-wing”: Member of the “New Fair Square Deal of the Great Society” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Kleptomaniac”: Member of the “Hands of Bender” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Paternity-suited”: Member of the “Children of Someone Else” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Divorced”: Member of the “Self Liberation Army” cult
- “Cult-worshipping” and “Eccentric”: Member of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” cult

Each of these cults shall be abbreviated in the GNDT as follows:
- Member of “Fiat Ego” cult = FE
- Member of “Friends of Jack Daniels” cult = FoJD
- Member of “Intimate Friends of Jack Daniels” cult = IFoJD
- Member of “Order of Don Juan” cult = OoDj
- Member of “Sexholic Army” cult = SA
- Member of the “Opus Reagani” cult = OR
- Member of the “New Square Fair Deal of the Great Society” cult = NSFDotGS
- Member of the “Hands of Bender” cult = HoB
- Member of the “Children of Someone Else” cult = CoSE
- Member of the “Self Liberation Army” cult = SLA
- Member of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” cult = FSM

Add a new rule, “Friends”;

All Actors have a Friends-List, which is stored in a wiki page called “Friends”. The Friends-List is a list of the Friends that actor has. Often an Actor may either;
a) Add a new Friend to eir list,
OR
b) Remove a friend from eir list.

Each Actor cannot have more than 5 friends on eir list.
An Actor may only be the Friend of at most 5 other Actors.
An Actor may only add another Actor as a Friend to eir list if they;
a) Currently has the same location as the Actor,
And,
b) E has equal or less fame than the Actor.

An Actor may only remove a Friend from eir list if either;
a) E has a different location as the Friend,
Or
b) E has more fame than the Friend.

When this passes create a new page on the wiki called “Friends” with sub headdings for each Actor.

Actors cannot be considered to be friends with a lesser Actor. Friendship can be either 1-way or 2-way.

I’ve had an ill few days, and have some busy weeks ahead - I think I’ll bow out and go idle, at least for now.

Add a new rule, entitled “Indie Cinema”:

Actors may occasionally chose to work on an indie film. Indie films have three roles that must be filled by different before the film can commence production. These roles are:

Writer - an Actor must have work experience as an Extra before e can be a Writer on an indie film.
Director - an Actor must have work experience as an Nth Minor Character before e can be a Director on an indie film.
Producer - an Actor must have work experience as a named role before e can be a Producer of an indie film.

If an Actor wants to make an indie film, e must post to the gamestate with a title and a brief outline of the plot for eir film. That actor must be the Writer. Other Actors may then lobby for the other roles; the Writer may chose a Producer and the Producer may chose a Director from those who have expressed an interest. The Director may then select any number of interested Actors to act in the indie. When all three roles are filled, all Actors involved may add their indie to their filmographies along with their respective roles. A link should be provided to the proposing post, and the Producer should also make a note of the film’s budget (see below).

Production on an indie is considered to start from the moment that the Producer selects a Director, and is finished when the Producer posts to the gamestate to declare it so. This post must detail the amount of Fame gained by each member of the cast and crew, as detailed below. The Producer must declare the film complete between five and nine days after it has started production; if nine days elapse without the Producer declaring the film to be complete, then the film collapses. No Actor may be involved with more than one indie that is in production at a time.

At the end of the production, each Actor gains or loses fame according to eir role. All values are rounded to the nearest whole number. The sum of the fame of the Writer, Director and Producer at the beginning of the production is defined as the “budget”; the same number at the end of the run is the “revenue”.

* Writer: 1/2 of the difference between the budget at the beginning of the project, and the revenue at the end of the project (before this change is applied)
* Director: The difference between the budget at the beginning of the project, and the revenue at the end of the project (before this change is applied)
* Producer: 2 if the Writer and Director gained Fame; -2 if they lost fame; 0 if they neither gained nor lost
* Actor: 4 if the Writer, Director and Producer gained fame; -4 if they lost fame; 0 if they neither gained nor lost

Add a sub-rule I’m a Star to Gossip

Once every 4 days, but not more than once every day, an Actor may choose to becomes the subject of a new Gossip Story, by adding it to eir “Gossip” field in the GNDT.

Edit Critics, so it reads:

Up to two (2) Actors may be Critics. Currently the Critics are Hix and Chronos Phaenon. Any Actor may edit this paragraph so it reflects correctly who are currently the Critics.

Any Critic who becomes idle ceases to be a Critic. A Critic may choose to cease to be so by posting a entry to that effect.

At any time, if there are fewer than two Critics, whenever a Proposal is enacted which has a Quorum of FOR votes, its author becomes a Critic.

Make Critical Acclaim a sub-rule of Critics

Quorum is 13.

Sorry everyone, I am visiting MIT to see if I want to come here. I will be here until wednesday, so I won’t be logging on until then. (I got here on Saturday.)

If “We Need Compensation II-rc2” failed, this proposal does nothing

Replace 2.1 Filmographies with

Each actor has a Filmography, which is stored in a wiki page called “Filmographies”. This is a list of the roles that each actor has held, and the amount of fame earned from that role.

2.1.1 Films

There exists a category of role called “Film”.  Any film listed in a Filmography must exist on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com) and a link should be provided.  In addition, the following must also be specified:
* The year of that film
* The role that they played in the film

When adding a film to eir Filmography, an Actor shall calculate the fame e has earned for that role as specified in 2.4.1 “Role Values”.

A role specified for a film may be either:-

* “Extra”
* “Nth Minor Character” (where “N” is any number, and “Minor Character” is a generic role such as “Hoodlum” or “Fireman” - eg. “4th Zombie”)
* A named role that appears in the IMDB credits of the film.

Any Actor may add a new film to his Filmography, if e has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-

* A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
* A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

If “Supermarket Sweep” passed, repeal “Gameshow”, and add the following rule:

2.1.2 Gameshows

There exists a category of role called “Gameshow”.  Occasionally any Actor may add a Gameshow to eir Filmography.  When e does, e rolls DICE3:

  - on a roll of a 1, the gameshow’s Fame value is 1.
  - on a roll of a 2, the gameshow’s Fame value is 2.
  - on a roll of a 3, the gameshow’s Fame value is -3.

If the Proposal “We Need Compensation II-rc2” is passed, this proposal has no effect.

In the Ruleset change rule 2.4 Fame to read as follows:

Every Actor has a Fame statistic, tracked in the GNDT. Fame is an integer from 0-100. Actors start with a Fame of 0.

Create a new Rule called “Press Conference and After Party” with text:

Whenever an Actor adds a film and ‘’‘named role’‘’ to eir own Filmography, e must make a GNDT comment of “PRESS DICE100” and then make a ‘’‘Press Conference Post’‘’ within 15 minutes, or else the addition of that film and role is considered invalid (as if it had never been made).

A post to the main blog is considered a ‘’‘Press Conference Post’‘’ if all of the following are satisfied:
* The author has added a film and named role to eir own Filmography within the previous 15 minutes
* The author has not already made a Press Conference Post since the addition of that film and role
* The post reports the title of that film and the name of that role
* The post reports the result of the first “PRESS DICE100” roll the author made in the GNDT since adding that film and role
* The post reports its author’s Fame statistic
* The post is titled “Press Conference”

When an Actor makes a Press Conference Post, if the reported DICE100 result is less than or equal to half of eir Fame, then e becomes the subject of the first Gossip Story named in comments to the post by another Actor (as soon as such a comment is made).  If the result is greater than half of eir Fame, the post is also considered an ‘’‘After Party Post’‘’, and the author of the post is its Host.

Every Actor that is currently in the same location as the Host is a Guest to the After party, and the Host and Guests gain fame as follows:

*The Host gains 1 Fame for every other Actor that is a Guest of the party, with a minimum gain of 1, and a maximum gain of 10.
*Every Guest gains an amount of fame equal to 1/10 of the Fame that the Host had at the time the post was made (rounded up to the next whole number), with a minimum gain of 1, and a maximum gain of 5.
*The Host is responsible for updating eir own Fame and the Fame of every Guest within 10 minutes of posting the Press Conference Post.

This change eliminates the Fire Drill aspect of the original idea, and provides some meaning to the Location aspect of the GDNT.

Rule 2.5.1, as stated in the wiki, is missing the name of a Critic.  The missing Critic’s name should be supplied per the original Proposal.  (This probably means action by you, Hix.)

A confident step on the red carpet; the flash of gem-encrusted jewellery. Hollywood’s newest starlet, Axeling, is in town, and e’s raising quorum to 14 everywhere e goes.

Following the British return of Dale and Supermarket Sweep…

Add New Rule, “Gameshow”;

Occasionally any Actor may participate in a gameshow. When they do they roll DICE3;

- on a roll of a 1, e GAINS 1 fame points.
- on a roll of a 2, e GAINS 2 fame points.
- on a roll of a 3, e LOSES 3 fame points.

Next time you go to the checkout and you hear the beep… think of the fun you could be having on Supermarket Sweep.

Hey everyone.  A friend sent me this link and I’d be interested in joining, if possible.  Thanks.

Replace the first paragraph of 2.1 Filmographies with

Each actor has a Filmography, which is stored in a wiki page called “Filmographies”. This is a list of the films that each Actor has starred in, and for each film:
* The year of that film
* The role that they played in the film
* The amount of Fame earned from the role

When adding a role to eir Filmography, an Actor shall calculate the fame e has earned for that role as specified in 2.4.1 “Role Values”.

Replace 2.4 Fame with

Every Actor has a Fame statistic, tracked in the GNDT.  Fame is an unbounded non-negative integer.  Actors start with a Fame of 0.  An Actor’s Fame is the sum of the Fame earned from each of the roles in eir Filmography.  At any time, an Actor may update the GNDT to reflect the current Fame value for any Actor.

2.4.1 Role Values

A role’s Fame value is determined solely at the time the role is added to an Actor’s Filmography, and cannot be changed except as explicitly stated by other rules.

* If the role is as an Extra, it is worth 1 Fame.
* If the role is as a Minor Character, it is worth 3 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is not currently the subject of any Gossip stories, it is worth 5 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is currently the subject of exactly one Gossip story, it is worth 3 + DICE5 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is currently the subject of more than one Gossip story, it is worth 1 + 2DICE5 Fame.

Calculate Fame values (per 2.4.1) for all roles currently in the Filmographies.
Update all Actor’s Fame values on the GNDT.

Ok.  I reduced the fame values to something more reasonable.  The expected values for the gossip story cases are 6 and 7, respectively.  Thus, having a gossip story is generally a good thing, but also more risky.  The idea behind this is that fame is a measure of the value that an Actor adds to a movie simply by being in the credits, and publicity for an Actor can either help or hurt a movie.  Also, a named role will never produce less fame than a minor role.

Addressing Hix’s comment on the previous iteration:  The proposal that this would have conflicted with has failed, and similar proposals can still work, they just have to act on a role’s fame rather than an Actor’s total Fame.  In the long run, its all about the movies, right?

Text Deleted; forgot to make this a proposal.  Move along; nothing to see here.

Add a new rule called “The Great Divide”

Each actor has a attribute called “Looks” and an Attribute called “Brains” both a values ranging from -100 to 100 and are tracked in the GNDT.

An Actor man often change either eir looks or eir brains provided:
A) The sum of eir looks and eir brains is less or equal to 100.
B) The absolute value the difference between the square of eir looks and the square of eir brains is less than or equal to 1000.
C) E does not change eir looks or eir brains by any more than 10 at any one time.

All new actors start with a Looks and Brains of 10 each.

Create the two columns (Looks and Brains) in the GNDT and set each at 10 looks and 10 brains.

Add a new Rules-set as a subset of 2.3 Gossip as follows:

Right-Wing:
This Gossip Story is mutually exclusive with the Gossip Story Left-Wing.  If an Actor is under the effect of this Gossip Story ey cannot vote on a proposal the same as an Actor under the effect of the Left-Wing Gossip Story.

Left-Wing:
This Gossip Story is mutually exclusive with the Gossip Story Left-Wing.  If an Actor is under the effect of this Gossip Story ey cannot vote on a proposal the same as an Actor under the effect of the Right-Wing Gossip Story.

Change the letters on the deferential voting icon from “IMP” to “DEF”.

“Do you believe the voice?” - Dr. Werber (from The X-files, Season 1, Episode 3)

Add subrule 2.4 “Cults” to rule 2.3 “Gossip””

If an Actor has “Cult-worshipping” as one gossip story and also has another gossip story active simultaneously, then e may choose to have the gossip story “Cult-worshipping” changed to one of the following, based what the second gossip story is:

-“Cult-worshipping” and “Pretentious”: Member of “Fiat Ego” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Alcoholic”: Member of “Friends of Jack Daniels” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Alcoholic”: Member of “Intimate Friends of Jack Daniels” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Philandering”: Member of “Order of Don Juan” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Sex-addicted”: Member of “Sexholic Army” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Right-wing”: Member of the “Opus Reagani” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Left-wing”: Member of the “New Fair Square Deal of the Great Society” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Kleptomaniac”: Member of the “Hands of Bender” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Paternity-suited”: Member of the “Children of Someone Else” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Divorced”: Member of the “Self Liberation Army” cult
-“Cult-worshipping” and “Eccentric”: Member of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” cult

If the Proposal “Leading Roles (might) make you Famous” does not pass, this proposal has no effect.

Create a new Sub-rule of Fame with the text:

When an Actor adds a Named Role to eir Filmography of a filme which another Actor has already been a Name Role in, that actor gains 2 fame and the other Actor looses 2 Fame.  The Actor cannot post a Press Conference and no other Actor may add a role from that film.

In Rule 2.3, insert after the list of gossip stories:

Any effects, excluding those effects which become exempt by future resolutions, incurred by a Gossip Story on an Actor shall be multiplied by an Amplification Quotient, when possible. This Quotient shall equal the square root of the Fame of the Actor rounded to the nearest integer, unless the Actor in question’s Fame is equal to zero, in which case the Quotient shall equal 1.

If there is no rule “Critical Acclaim” this proposal does nothing.

Amend “Critical Acclaim” to read:

An Actor earns “Critical Acclaim” if both of the following conditions are true:

- e is not, at that time, disqualified from earning Critical Acclaim, and
- e makes a Proposal that passes, and both Critics vote “FOR” the Proposal (or cast votes that have the effect of votes FOR the Proposal).

Upon an Actor earning “Critical Acclaim”, e must select a role in eir Filmography and add the text “Critical Acclaim” to eir Filmography in reference to that role. This action is defined as earning Critical Acclaim with respect to that role. A role that has earned Critical Acclaim is defined as an Acclaimed Role, and any role that is not an Acclaimed Role is an Unacclaimed Role.  An Actor may not earn Critical Acclaim more than once with respect to a particular role. An Actor may not earn Critical Acclaim for a film in which e was an Extra.

An Actor is disqualified from earning Critical Acclaim for so long as any of the following are true:

- there are fewer than two Critics, or
- e has no Unacclaimed Roles in eir Filmography, or
- e has the Gossip Story: “Right-wing” and, simultaneously, either Critic has the Gossip Story “Left-Wing”, or
- e has the Gossip Story: “Left-wing” and, simultaneously, either Critic has the Gossip Story “Right-Wing”.

“Never regret yesterday.  Life is in you today, and you make your DoV tomorrow.” (A quotation from Blognominetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health)

Add a new Dynastic rule, called “Clambake”:

If an Actor having the Gossip Story “Cult-Worshipping” makes a Proposal, then no other Actor that also has the Gossip Story “Cult-Worshipping” and that also has fewer Fame points than the Actor making the Proposal may make any vote that has the effect of a vote Against the Proposal.

Replace the first paragraph of 2.1 Filmographies with

Each actor has a Filmography, which is stored in a wiki page called “Filmographies”. This is a list of the films that each Actor has starred in, and for each film:
* The year of that film
* The role that they played in the film
* The amount of Fame earned from the role

When adding a role to eir Filmography, an Actor shall calculate the fame e has earned for that role as specified in 2.4.1 “Role Values”.

Replace 2.4 Fame with

Every Actor has a Fame statistic, tracked in the GNDT. Fame is an integer from 0-100. Actors start with a Fame of 0.  An Actor’s Fame is the sum of the Fame earned from each of the roles in eir Filmography.  At any time, an Actor may update the GNDT to reflect the current Fame value for any Actor.  A role’s Fame value is determined solely at the time the role is added to an Actor’s Filmography, and cannot be changed except as explicitly stated by other rules.

2.4.1 Role Values

* If the role is as an Extra, it is worth 1 Fame.
* If the role is as a Minor Character, it is worth 3DICE6 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is not currently the subject of any Gossip stories, it is worth 3DICE6 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is currently the subject of exactly one Gossip story, it is worth 5DICE6 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is currently the subject of more than one Gossip story, it is worth 2DICE6 Fame.

Calculate Fame values (per 2.4.1) for all roles currently in the Filmographies.
Update all Actor’s Fame values on the GNDT.

(in tribute to Siskel and Ebert)

Part 1:

Add a new Dynastic rule called “Critics”, as follows:

Up to two (2) Actors may be Critics. The GNDT will appropriately indicate which Actors, if any, are Critics. The initial Critics are Hix and “x”.  Any Critic who becomes idle ceases to be a Critic.

(end Part 1)

Part 2:

The “x” in Part 1 will be replaced by the name of the single Actor who receives the most Qualified Nominations. A Qualified Nomination consists of a comment to this Proposal that contains the commenting Actor’s final vote on this Proposal (with finality being determined as of the time that this Proposal is adminned) and that names an Actor—other than Hix, Spikebrennan, or the Actor who posted the comment—as the nominee of the Actor who posted the comment. If when this Proposal is adminned no singe Actor has received the most Qualified Nominations then Hix will select an Actor (other than Hix or Spikebrennan) to be “x”.
(end Part 2)

Part 3:

Add a new Dynastic rule called “Critical Acclaim”, as follows:

An Actor earns “Critical Acclaim” if both of the following conditions are true:

- e is not, at that time, disqualified from earning Critical Acclaim, and
- e makes a Proposal that passes, and both Critics vote “FOR” the Proposal (or cast votes that have the effect of votes FOR the Proposal).

Upon an Actor earning “Critical Acclaim”, e must select a role in eir Filmography and add the text “Critical Acclaim” to eir Filmography in reference to that role. This action is defined as earning Critical Acclaim with respect to that role. A role that has earned Critical Acclaim is defined as an Acclaimed Role, and any role that is not an Acclaimed Role is an Unacclaimed Role.  An Actor may not earn Critical Acclaim more than once with respect to a particular role.

An Actor is disqualified from earning Critical Acclaim for so long as any of the following are true:

- there are fewer than two Critics, or
- e has no Unacclaimed Roles in eir Filmography, or
- e has the Gossip Story: “Right-wing” and, simultaneously, either Critic has the Gossip Story “Left-Wing”, or
- e has the Gossip Story: “Left-wing” and, simultaneously, either Critic has the Gossip Story “Right-Wing”.

(end Part 3)

Rewrite the Rule “Fame” so that it reads:

Every Actor has a Fame statistic, tracked in the GNDT. Fame is an integer from 0-100. Actors start with a Fame of 0.

.
Multiply each Actor’s Fame by 10.
Create a new Rule called “Press Conference and After Party” with text:

Whenever an Actor adds a film and named role to eir own Filmography, e must make a GNDT comment of “PRESS DICE100” and then make a Press Conference Post within 15 minutes, or else the addition of that film and role is considered invalid (as if it had never been made).

A post to the main blog is considered a Press Conference Post if all of the following are satisfied:
* The author has added a film and named role to eir own Filmography within the 15 minutes prior to its posting
* The author has not already made a Press Conference Post since the addition of that film and role
* The post reports the title of that film and the name of that role
* The post reports the result of the first “PRESS DICE100” roll the author made in the GNDT since adding that film and role
* The post reports its author’s Fame statistic
* The post is titled “Press Conference”

When an Actor makes a Press Conference Post, if the reported DICE100 result is less than or equal to half of eir Fame, then e becomes the subject of the first Gossip Story named in comments to the post by another Actor (as soon as such a comment is made). If the result is greater than half of eir Fame, the post is also considered an After Party Post, and the author of the post is its Host.  24 hours after an After Party Post is made, the the Host and every Actor who has commented on that post gain fame as follows:
*The Host gains 1 Fame for every other Actor that commented to the post, with a minimum gain of 1, and a maximum gain of 10.
*Any other Actor that commented to the post gains an amount of fame equal to 1/10 of the Fame that the Host had at the time the post was made (rounded up to the next whole number), with a minimum gain of 1, and a maximum gain of 5.

.
Any cheese awarded as the direct result of this Proposal’s Enactment shall go to Amnistar, rather than to Hix.

Delete from the Glossary:

* It is noted that where a Proposal would amend the effects of Proposal Enactment, this does not apply to its own enactment unless explicitly stated (eg. a proposal proposing that enacted proposals earn their writer a banana when enacted would not earn a banana for its own writer, when enacted).
* Rules which trigger upon the Enacment or Failure of a Proposal are the responsibility of the Admin who Enacts or Fails it.

Add to the end of rule 1.5 Enactment:

All changes to the Ruleset and/or Gamestate mandated by a Proposal shall have effect starting at the time of its enactment, in the same order they are listed in said Proposal. Any change mandated by a Proposal which would linger for later triggering is void, unless it is made part of the Ruleset.

If a Proposal would cause a change to the Ruleset and/or Gamestate and that change is not made immediately after the Proposal’s Enactment, that change may be made later. In this case, the change shall be construed to be have made at the moment of the Proposal’s enactment.

If a Proposal would amend the effects of Proposal Enactment, that amendment doesn’t aplly to the enactment of that Proposal itself, unless explicitly stated. (Eg. a proposal creating a rule where enacted proposals earn their writer a banana when enacted would not earn a banana for its own writer, when enacted.)

Whenever an Admin enacts or fails a Proposal, e is also responsible for enforcing any rules which trigger upon the Enactment or Failure of a Proposal.

If there is a rule called “Wealth”, and the unit that it defines is called “We’ve got enough stats”, then add the following to the rule:

We’ve got enough stats can also be referred to by the symbol “$”.

As soon as this proposal passes, The Doctor’s gossip field shall be set to “Sex-addicted”.

The Doctor has been bad and can’t run from the truth.

OK, this should make dates mostly unambiguous, and will work with the current settings of ~~~~.  If someone has a better wording of either of these, let me know and I’ll repropose this (again).  I don’t want to have to type 0066 for the year 66, though.

Add a non-dynastic rule ‘Dates’:

1. Whenever a particular month is mentioned in a Proposal or a representation of the Gamestate, it must be specified by the complete English name of that month, or an unambiguous truncation thereof.

2. Whenever a particular year is mentioned in a Proposal or a representation of the Gamestate, it must be specified as the number of years since the beginning of the common era, with an optional suffix of “BCE” (Before Common Era) or “CE” (in Common Era) to denote the direction.  If no suffix is given, “CE” is assumed. Thus, “07” Refers to the year 7, not the year 2007.

Reformat all nonconforming dates in pending proposals to comply with the new rule.

If “E’s are bad” passes this proposal does nothing”, otherwise,

Remove “Spivak pronouns, as defined in the Glossary, shall be used whenever an Actor is referred to.” from Rule 1.1.

Repeal Glossary section 3.5 (Spivak).

Replace all Spivak with appropriate instances of the singular “X”, throughout the ruleset.

Add a new Rule, “Spivak Cleanup” (so that later proposals don’t have to worry about whether to use Spivak):-

Spivak usage shall be adjusted into the singular form of “X”, whenever a proposal passes that contains Spivak. Any admin may repeal this rule at any time.

All comments containing counted votes should also contain a nomination for the replacement word. The nomination that is mentioned most will replace “X” when this Proposal is enacted. If there is a tie, the winner is decided at the discretion of the Investor. Finally, those who voted against can vote on the unit of currency.

If the proposal E’s are bad is passed, replace all Spivak pronouns with singular they.

Create a new rule called “Charity Work” with text:

Performing Charity Work is defined as any time an Actor adds a role of Extra to eir own Filmography and the number of eir roles of Extra works in eir current Filmography is less than half the total number of roles on eir Filmography.

Within 10 minutes of Performing Charity Work, an actor may remove one (and only one) gossip story affecting em.

Remove “Spivak pronouns, as defined in the Glossary, shall be used whenever an Actor is referred to.” from Rule 1.1.

Repeal Glossary section 3.5 (Spivak).

Replace all Spivak with appropriate instances of the singular “they”, throughout the ruleset.

Add a new Rule, “Spivak Cleanup” (so that later proposals don’t have to worry about whether to use Spivak):-

Spivak usage shall be adjusted into the singular form of “they”, whenever a proposal passes that contains Spivak. Any admin may repeal this rule at any time.

By performing as an extra in a film an Actor my remove a single Gossip Story from eir biography.

Following the list of Gossip Stories in Rule 2.3, the following shall be added:

Any effects incurred by a Gossip Story on an Actor shall be amplified by an Amplification Quotient, when possible. This Quotient shall equal the square root of the Fame of the Actor rounded to the nearest integer, unless the Actor in question’s Fame is equal to zero, in which case the Quotient shall equal 1.

This is to represent the fact that more famous actors are affected more by gossip than less famous actors. The “when possible” in the first sentence is intended to exempt effects that cannot be mathmatically multiplied.

Heard about this from a friend in one of my classes and thought that I’d look into it.  Looks like a load of fun and am really interested in getting involved.

Hello Amnistar
I saw that you just voted
Please post first to join

I hope your name has 3 syllables, or else my haiku is a non-ku.

Essentially the same as it was before, except I have removed the consequences both of having to go into Rehab and of being Washed Up, leaving them to be determined by some future proposal.

“Oh, I don’t drink these days. I am allergic to alcohol and narcotics. I break out in handcuffs.”
Robert Downey Jr.

If the Proposal titled “Wealth Beyond Measure IV” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Create a column with three distinct blank spaces in the GNDT, said column to be entitled “Visits to Rehab”.

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 8, as tracked in the GNDT, before he can advance any further in fame, e must roll 2DICE6.  If e craps out, i.e. rolls 2, 3, or 12, e is considered to be Strung Out, and must go into Rehab.

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 9, e must do the same as above, except roll 2DICE6 two times.

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 10, e must do the same as above, except roll 2DICE6 three times.

The “I’ve Learned My Lesson, Your Honor” Clause:  If an Actor loses a level of fame but then returns to that same level in the future, e does not have to roll for Rehab again.

If an actor goes to Rehab, e gets an X in the appropriate column in the GNDT next to is name.  If an Actor goes to Rehab three times, thereby having three Xs in is Rehab column, e is considered Washed Up.

If either “Intercity Network” or “Globetrotting” fails, this proposal does nothing.

Otherwise, this proposal is identical to “Intercity Network” with all instances of the word “Hometown” replaced by “Location”.

In Rule 2.3 remove the Gossip Story “Paternity-suited” on grounds of gender bias.

Rewrite rule 2.2 Hometown to say:

If the proposal “Globetrotting” passes, replace all occurances of the word “Hometown” with “Location” below.

Occasionally any Actor may choose to change eir hometown to a listed “connected town” for that town.For example, those in LA can move to New York, Vancourver or Tokyo;

  * LA - Home of Hollywood and the elite red carpets. Connected towns: New York, Tokyo, Vancouver;
  * New York - Home of Broadway and the sub sandwich. Connected towns: LA, Vancouver, Mumbai, Machu Picchu; 
  * Tokyo - Home of Japanese cinema, animation, and Godzilla. Connected towns: LA, Hong Kong, Mumbai;
  * Mumbai - Bollywood! The home of the Indian musical. Connected towns: New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong;
  * Vancouver - The center of Canadian cinema, which is generally indistinguishable from American. Connected Towns: New York, LA, Machu Picchu;
  * Hong Kong - Known internationally for making the Hong Kong Blood Opera a genre in its own right. Connected Towns: Mumbai, Tokyo;
  * Machu Picchu - Admittedly not much in the way of cinema here. Connected towns: New York, Vancouver;

All Actors have a hometown tracked in the GNDT column “Hometown”.

New Actors start with the hometown “LA”.

Throughout the Ruleset and the GNDT, replace “Hometown” with “Location”.

Add a new rule called “Wealth”:

Each Actor has a Wealth number tracked in the GNDT. Wealth is measured in X units.

All comments containing counted votes should also contain a nomination for the unit. The nomination that is mentioned most will replace “X units” when this Proposal is enacted. If there is a tie, the winner is decided at the discretion of the Investor. Finally, those who voted against can vote on the unit of currency.

Add to the first part of the Glossary:

* All changes to the Ruleset and/or Gamestate mandated by a Proposal shall have effect simultaneously at the time of its enactment. Any change mandated by a Proposal which would linger for later triggering is void, unless it is made part of the Ruleset.

Just clarifying things

In rule 1.2 Actors, change:

Admins may render an Actor Idle if that Actor has failed to vote for more than 7 days or has asked to become Idle.

to

Admins may render an Actor Idle if that Actor has asked to become Idle or if that Actor has not posted a entry or comment for more than 7 days.

This makes Admin work a lot easier, as EE’s profiles track the data needed to enforce it.

Add a new rule, entitled “Powers of Patronage”:

The Investor may never have a hometown other than LA.

If a quorum or more of all Actors have eir hometown set to locations other than LA, then any gains ey may make to eir Fame are halved, while any gains made by actors who are still in LA are doubled.

If you want to make the news, it’s much easier if you’re where all the paparazzi are anyway.

Add a subrule to “Gossip”. Call it “Jealousy”

An Actor may occasionally make another Actor the subject of a gossip story, provided eir fame is strictly less than the fame of the Actor who will be the subject of the gossip story.

“You belong to _me!_” (Phantom of the Opera, 2004)

Part 1:
Proposed new rule, entitled “Blacklisted Directors”

At any time commencing at the beginning of the day on February 18, 2007, each Actor may add the name of one (1) Director (other than a Whitelisted Director) to eir “Filmography” subsection on the wiki, together with an indication that such Director is eir “Blacklisted Director”.  If a particular Director is an Actor’s “Blacklisted Director”, then no Actor (other than the Actor who lists that Director as eir “Blacklisted Director”) may add any Film directed by that Director to eir respective Filmography.  However, nothing in this Rule affects the validity of any Film added to a Filmography prior to February 18, 2007.  Once an Actor lists a particular Director as eir “Blacklisted Director”, no other Actor may choose that Director as eir “Blacklisted Director”.  Once an Actor lists a particular Director as eir “Blacklisted Director”, that choice may not be amended or revoked.

For the purposes of this Rule, the following definitions apply:

The term “Director” means an individual who is credited at imdb.com as having been the director (as opposed to an art director, a second unit director or some other designation) of at least one Film.

A Film is “directed by” a particular individual if imdb.com credits that individual as having directed that Film.  If imdb.com credits more than one individual as having directed a Film, then for the purposes of this Rule the Film is deemed to have been “directed by” each of them individually.

The term “Whitelisted Director” means any individual who is listed on the following list:

- Steven Spielberg
- Alfred Hitchcock
- x

Part 2
During the voting on this Proposal, any Actor who casts a vote FOR the proposal may include, as part of the post containing eir vote, the names of up to two Directors, identified as that Actor’s “Whitelist Nominations”.  Only the names (if any) included in the post containing the Actor’s final vote on this Proposal will count.  If this Proposal is adopted, then substitute for “x” in the list of Whitelisted Directors the name or names of any one more Directors who are validly listed in the Whitelist Nominations of at least two different Actors.

————————————————-
Commentary: (this is not part of the Proposal)
The purpose of this Proposal is to add more strategy and drama to the selection of additions to a Filmography.  The built-in delay on the opportunity to choose a Blacklisted Director is intended to give everyone an opportunity to think carefully about choosing a director.  Nothing in this proposal requires an Actor to select films chosen by eir Blacklisted Director to add to eir Filmography, this Proposal simply provides a means for an Actor to block other Actors from adding particular films.  The “Whitelisted Director” clause is intended to ensure that Films directed by certain particular well-known or prolific directors remain unblocked by this rule (but also adds to the strategy, since an Actor’s adding particular whitelist names to a proposal may provide a clue into that Actor’s strategic thinking.

Quorum drops to the sickening depths of 13.

I sent excalibur the updated star for the top, and e would know very well how to enact the changes. You could just wait for em.

If this proposal passes, Doremi is ineligible to win this dynasty, whether or not e satisfies the victory conditions. Eir name will be removed from the filmographies wiki, and e will assume eir managerial duties.

I don’t wanna win again, honest!

In the Rule “Filmographies”, replace “if they have not already done so in the previous four days” with “if e has not already done so that day or on any of the 3 previous three days”

Remove all Film/Role entries on the Filmographies page that were added by Actors at a time when that Actor had already done so that day.

If proposal “Post-Investment” Fails, add to rule 1.8,

If the Investor becomes idle, e is then no longer the investor. That dynasty shall then have no investor. If the Investor becomes active then e may make a proposal to become Investor again.

If proposal “Post-Investment” Passes, add to rule 1.8,

If the Studio becomes idle, e is then no longer the studio. That dynasty shall then have no studio. If the Studio becomes active then e may make a proposal to become Studio again.

I’m afraid I’m not technical enough to admin “The Silver (Beige) Screen” - I swear I’m not just being lazy, I just don’t want to accidentally destroy the internet or anything.

How did “Decluttering” failed before “Fame and Fortune”?  The proposal was intended to allow this sort of thing, but it won’t pass.  Also, Spikebrennan suggested that admins do this earlier (for other self-killed posts), and was summarily told that that couldn’t happen, as it was against the rules.  Thus, I believe that “Decluttering” should have its status changed back to Pending until “Fame and Fortune” is either Passed or Failed.

Right now, the filmographies have dates listed in both mm/dd/yyyy and dd/mm/yyyy formats.  This would make dates be yyyy-mm-dd, or yyyy for years

Add a rule “Dates”:

Any specific date or time mentioned in a Gamestate document or in a Proposal must conform to the ISO 8601 specification.

Thanks!

[ Now that it turns out that our careers have already passed, we only care about the copyrights and royalties… ]

Replace “Investor” with “Studio” throughout the ruleset.

Baby remember my name!  Remember… Remember… Remember…

If Proposal: “Fame and Fortune” is not adopted then this Proposal does nothing.

Proposed new Dynastic rule: Fame adjustments:

Subject to any Rule that places limits or conditions on the award of Fame points:
(A) If an Actor makes a Proposal that passes, and either: (i) no “NO” votes were cast for that Proposal, or (ii) at least ten (10) more “YES” votes (including votes that have the effect of “YES” votes), then the Actor that made that Proposal is awarded one (1) Fame point.
(B) If an Actor (other than the Investor) makes a Proposal that passes, and the text of the Proposal includes a film quote from the imdb.com database that the Investor in eis sole discretion deems to be witty and germane to the subject matter of the Proposal, then the Investor in eis sole discretion may award the Actor who made the Proposal one (1) Fame point (which may be in addition to any Fame point awarded under part (A) of this Rule).

Points for popularity, points for style.

Add a new rule, entitled “Being a Diva”.

All Actors have certain pet hates in their co-stars. An Actor may never have the same film listed in eir filmography as another actor who has their pet peeve as a Gossip Story. If an Actor gains a Gossip Story after appearing in a film with an Actor to whom that story is a pet peeve, then the film must be withdraw from the the actor with the Pet Peeve (i.e. it must be removed from their filmography); this does not have any retroactive effect on the legality activities already undertaken, but the actor must replace the role that e undertook on the film e withdrew from before e may add any new roles to eir list.

Actors mutually excluded from films in this manner are considered to be ‘Enemies’ or ‘Rivals’, and my occasionally trash-talk about each other by posting to the gamestate.

New or un-idled Actors must immediately chose a Pet Peeve upon joining the game, and may not undertake any other game actions until they have done so. Pet Peeves are tracked in the GNDT and may never be changed unless the rulestate specifically permits it elsewhere.

Upon the passage of this proposal, all Actors should chose a pet peeve from the list of available Gossip Stories before undertaking any further game actions. Actors who have no Pet Peeve after 48 hours from the passage of this proposal may have eir Pet Peeve selected at random by any other Actor.

If the Proposal titled “Proposal: Betty Ford, Here I Come” passed, add the following to the rule:

If an Actor ever has eir own Pet Peeve as a Gossip Story, then they immediately have eir Rehab set to “XXX” and becomes Washed Up.

If e then loses that Gossip Story, then e may remove all Xs from eir Rehab column and gains “Making a Comeback” as a Gossip Story instead.

And add the following to the end of the list of Gossip Stories:

* Making a Comeback

While an Actor has “Making a Comeback” as a Gossip Story, they cannot be admitted to Rehab.

If the proposal “6 pi radians of Kevan’s Bacon” passes, this proposal does nothing.

Add a new rule, call it “Degrees of Separation”

Each actor has a figurative distance between each other actor. Because of the resources needed to keep track of every distance, distance is not recorded anywhere. Instead, anytime an Actor wishes to trigger a portion of the rules which call for the distance between two actors, e must make a post to the blog detailing the distance chain used. If another Actor believes that this chain has a hole, of it a shorter distance is possible, e can post about it as a comment and reverse whatever action the posting actor took.

Distance is defined as the length of the shortest path between two actors on the graph where:
*Each vertex represents an Actor, be it one or Blognomic or one in “real life”
*Each edge represents a pair of Actors who have appeared in the same movie.

If an Actor has a named role, e counts as the real actor who played that role for that movie only. For example, if an actor has the role of “Han Solo”, e counts as Harrison Ford (Star Wars), and thus would be a distance two from anyone appearing in Raiders of the Lost Ark(Other than Indiana Jones himself, who said Actor would be a distance of one from).

If two Actors share the same named role and the same movie, they have distance 0.

If there is no path which connects two Actors, their distance is “Undefined”.

A “Distance Chain” is defined as a full list of the connection of movies between the two actors in question.

For example, the current “Distance Chain” between Elias(who has appeared only in Casablanca) and Hix(Who has appeared only in Gone With the Wind) would be:

1) Elias appeared in Casablanca with George Meeker.
2) George Meeker appeared in Gone With the Wind with Hix.

It is recommended that actors either use the following tool for forming chains Link or some other automated tool to speed up the process.

A rule to emulate the drug factor in a star’s career.

If the Proposal titled “Fame and Fortune” failed, this Proposal does nothing.
If the Proposal titled “Wealth Beyond Measure III” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Create a column with three distinct blank spaces in the GNDT, said column to be entitled “Visits to Rehab”.

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 8, as tracked in the GNDT, before he can advance any further in fame, e must roll 2DICE6.  If e craps out, i.e. rolls 2, 3, or 12, e is considered to be Strung Out, and must go into Rehab. 

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 9, e must do the same as above, except roll 2DICE6 two times.

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 10, e must do the same as above, except roll 2DICE6 three times.

When in Rehab, an actor’s Wealth level decreases by ten percent, and e must also lose a level of Fame. That is, if e was at a fame level of 10 and had one million (insert unit of currency here) when e rolled, and e gets a 2, then, as tracked in the GNDT, is fame level drops to 9, and his wealth drops to nine hundred thousand (insert unit of currency here).

The “I’ve Learned My Lesson, Your Honor” Clause:  If an Actor loses a level of fame but then returns to that same level in the future, e does not have to roll for Rehab again.

If an actor goes to Rehab, e gets an X in the appropriate column in the GNDT next to is name.  If an Actor goes to Rehab three times, thereby having three Xs in is Rehab column, e is considered Washed Up, and is ineligible to win the game.

Add a new rule called Wealth:

Each Actor has a Wealth number tracked in the GNDT. Wealth is measured in X units.

All comments containing counted For votes should also contain a nomination for the unit. The nomination that is mentioned most will replace “X units” when this Proposal is enacted. If there is a tie, the winner is decided at the discretion of the Investor.
Notice the “counted for votes”. I’ve noticed that there are a lot of people who are not trustworthy in the interpretation of rules.

Add a new Rule “Friendship”;

Actors may have a Friend tracked in the GNDT column “Friend”. An Actor may occasionally take any other Actor (Not emself) as a Friend provided that all of the following are true;

a) E has the same hometown as his Friend.

b) E has appeared in at least one film his Friend has.

c) No other Actor has taken em as a Friend.

New Actors start with no Friend. As soon as either the Actor or his Friend changes hometown the Actor goes back to having no friend.

Please notice that Friendship doesn’t have to be 2-way.

Change the color scheme of the Blognomic main page to have a beige classic film feel, up to the discretion of the enacting admin (oh my, what a dangerous way to go).

Elias IX suggests a light brown background (#FFDD88) with dark brown letters (#442200).  The inside background of blockquote text could be a medium brown (#996633).  The rest of the borders and such can be played around with, as can the backgrounds.

Really, it’s whatever looks good and can attract new players.

I just tried to add something to my filmography, but it’s not showing up on the page.  The edit is recorded, though, with the correct information.

Add the following elements to the ‘Hometowns’ list in rule ‘Hometown’, 2.2, and to the GNDT:

• Tokyo - Home of Japanese cinema, animation, and Godzilla.
• Mumbai - Bollywood! The home of the Indian musical.
• Vancouver - The center of Canadian cinema, which is generally indistinguishable from American.
• Hong Kong -  Known internationally for making the Hong Kong Blood Opera a genre in its own right.
• Machu Picchu - Admittedly not much in the way of cinema here.

Los Angeles and New York, but no ‘foreign’ films?

Add a new Rule “Friendship”;

Actors may have a Friend tracked in the GNDT column “Friend”. An Actor may occasionally take any other Actor (Not emself) as a Friend provided that both the following are true;

a) E has the same hometown as his Friend.

b) E has appeared in at least one film his Friend has.

c) No other Actor has taken em as a Friend.

New Actors start with no Friend. As soon as either the Actor or his Friend changes hometown the Actor goes back to having no friend.

Please notice that Friendship doesn’t have to be 2-way.

Add the following elements to the ‘Hometowns’ list in rule ‘Hometown’, 2.2, and to the GNDT:

• Tokyo - Home of Japanese cinema, animation, and Godzilla.
• Mumbai - Bollywood central! The home of the Indian musical.
• Vancouver - The center of Canadian cinema, which is generally indistinguishable from American.
• Hong Kong -  Known international for making the Hong Kong Blood Opera a genre in its own right.
• Machu Picchu - Admittedly not much in the way of cinema here.

Can someone please tell me how the highlighting effect is achieved for proposals?  I have some html-fu but can’t seem to remember this one.

If the proposal “Rise to Fame” does not pass, this proposal does nothing.

Add a new rule called “Degrees of Separation”

In addition to the list of Film’s in eir Filmography, each Actor also has eir “distance” between each of the other actors listed.

Distance is defined as the length of the shortest path between two actors on the graph where:
*Each vertex represents an Actor, be it one or Blognomic or one in “real life”
*Any two vertexes are connected by an edge if the two actors appear in the same movie.

If an Actor has a named role, e counts as the real actor who played that role for that movie only. For example, if an actor has the role of “Han Solo”, e counts as Harrison Ford (Star Wars), and thus would be a distance two from anyone appearing in Raiders of the Lost Ark(Other than Indiana Jones himself, who said Actor would be a distance of one from).

If two Actors share the same named role and the same movie, they have distance 0.

If there is no path which connects two Actors, their distance is “Undefined”.

Any Actor may edit the distances between any other Actors(including eimself) providing the following happen:
*If e replaces a distance, the new distance must be less than the current distance. That is, e cannot make a longer chain.
*If e replaces the distance listed between Actor A and Actor B on Actor A’s filmography, e must use the same distance for Actor A on Actor B’s filmography.
*If the distance between Actor A and B is X and the distance between Actor B and C is Y, then the distance between Actor A and C cannot be set to more than X + Y.

If an Actor feels that a given distance between two Actors cannot be achieved, e can make a post about it on the blog declaring eir feelings. If no other Actor, within 24 hours of this post, posts a suitable length chain, then distance in question is reset to “Undefined”.

It is suggested, but not required, that Actors use on-line tools to help in calculating distances.

It is also suggested that if an Actor knows of such a tool, e post about it on the blog so that other Actors may use it.

Sorry about that; I misinterpreted the rules. I suppose this post is as good as any to announce that I would like to enter the current game.

Hello Edometheus. If you want to join the game, you just need to post a blog entry announcing your arrival, so that we can add you as a player. The votes you’re casting at the moment are illegal, as you aren’t yet an official player.

And while I’m here; all the user links in comments are pointing to my profile, for some reason. I don’t think this was the case a couple of days ago - has someone been careless with a template?

In rule 1.5, before “The Actor who proposed it has voted AGAINST it.” insert

Any pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin if any of the following are true:

In rule 1.3, replace the text in parenthesis with

unless the Actor already has made two Proposals more recently than the oldest pending Proposal, or has already made 3 Proposals that day

In Rule 1.7 an instance of the term Olympian still occurs. Could some admin fix that?

If the Proposal titled “Column inches” passed, this Proposal does nothing. Otherwise, add a new rule “Fame”:

Every Actor has a Fame statistic, tracked in the GNDT. Fame is an integer from 0-10. Actors start with a Fame of 0.

Fame is a major portion of an actor’s life. We can make this a factor in determining a salary, whether they’re likely to have gossip stories about them, et cetera.

“Do them again! And don’t forget the garden. Then scrub the terrace, sweep the halls and the stairs, clean the chimney. And of course there’s the mending and the sewing and the laundry…” (Evil Stepmother from Cinderella, 1950)

A number of the early Proposals have been withdrawn by their proposers (proposer voted against).  If it’s permitted, I would suggest that those Proposals be adminned, to help clear out the queue and so that attention can be focused on the remaining ones.

[ Simplifying the scandal idea, and trimming the gossip stories back to one or two words each, so that the GNDT columns don’t get too bloated. ]

If “So what’s your scandal” passed, replace “Each Actor may be the subject of zero [...] with respect to any number of Actors.” in the Gossip rule with:-

Each Actor may be the subject of up to two “Gossip Stories”, summarised as adjective-phrases in the “Gossip” field of the GNDT, and separated by an “and” if there are two of them. Whenever an Actor becomes the subject of a new Gossip Story, it is added to the end of the list; if this would result in three Gossip Stories for a single Actor, the first is forgotten, and deleted.

And replace the list with:-

Available Gossip Stories are:-

• Pretentious
• Drunk
• Alcoholic
• Philandering
• Sex-addicted
• Right-wing
• Left-wing
• Kleptomaniac
• Paternity-suited
• Cult-worshipping
• Divorced
• Eccentric

If “Column Inches” passed, replace the vanity project list with the slightly-abbreviated and tense-altered:-

• Touring with childhood band
• Adopting African child
• Directing an indie film
• Attacking government policy
• Launching underwear line
• Attending festival in home town
• UN Goodwill Ambassador
• Living in Britain
• Appearing in sitcom cameo
• Working for charity
• Investing in new technology

If the Proposal titled “So what’s your scandal” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Change all examples of the phrase “Gossip Stories” to “Media Stories”. Add the following to the end of the first paragraph of the rule entitled “Gossip”:

Every day that the Actor spends with an active story in one of eir Media Story columns, they must add one to their Column Inches statistic, which is tracked in the GNDT. If both Media Stories are occupied, e must add 3 to eir Column Inches stat.

There are two types of Media Stories: Gossip Stories and Vanity Projects.

Add to the end of the same rule:

The available Vanity Projects are:

*Tours with childhood band
*Adopts African child
*Writes, funds, directs and stars in low-budget indie
*Attacks government policy in awards speech
*Launches underwear line
*Attends festival in home town
*Becomes UN Goodwill Ambassador
*Moves to Britain
*Has a cameo in a popular sitcom
*Competes in a charity sporting event
*Invests in off-the-wall invention

Add a new column to the GNDT, entitled “Column Inches”.

Adds a positive kind of gossip story and a way of tracking media interest.

Who’s responsible for our new art? Elias? Excalabur? Doremi?

Fess up, it’s very nice.

Admins:
First, if editing the templates, do so in a non-crufty-manner.  We have a stylesheet for a reason.  Use it.  We have comments in the templates for a reason: don’t delete them.

Second, if you’re going to leave a comment somewhere, bloody well sign the thing, and preferably date it.  It’s no use saying ‘I can’t find X’ if you don’t say WHO YOU ARE.

So whoever put stylesheet type stuff in the header since they couldn’t find the template: use the template “stylesheet”!

(That comment may have been left months ago: so whoever left it in the header file: go fix whatever TF you did: I don’t want to figure it out).

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

I’ve been using the IMDB quote search engine to add pithy film quotes to the top of proposals.  I just think it’s cute.  Maybe it ought to be a Dynasty requirement to include an apropos film quote in order for a Proposal to be valid.

“I’m gonna be a producer! Sound the horn and beat the drum I’m gonna be a producer! Look out Hollywood, here I come!”
(with apologies to Leo Bloom)

Proposed new dynastic rule, entitled: “Making a Film”

From time to time, the Investor may make a post to the Blog announcing that a Film will be produced, stating the title of the Film, the number of roles that will be cast in that Film.  This post will be stickied.  The Wiki will contain a page entitled “Films”.  That page will contain a section entitled “Films in Production”.  Each Film that has been announced as being in production will have a sub-section under “Films in Production” until that Film is Released.  Each Film’s subsection under “Films in Production” will describe:

* the number of Actors that will be cast in that Film,
* the requirements that an Actor must satisfy in order to be eligible to Audition for a role in that Film,
* the date and time that casting for that Film will close,
* the date and time that the Film will be Released,
* the manner in which it will be determined how much (if any) Box Office the Film generated,
* the manner in which it will be determined how much (if any) Critical Acclaim the Film generated, and
* the manner in which the Film’s Box Office and Critical Acclaim will be allocated to each Actor that was cast in that Film.

Once casting closes with respect to a particular Film in production, the Film’s sub-section under “Films in Production” will be appropriately updated to indicate the final cast of the film.

The “Films” page in the Wiki will also contain a section entitled “Released Films”.  Each Film that has been Released will have a subsection on that page describing:

* The final cast of the Film,
* The Box Office that the Film generated,
* The Critical Acclaim that the Film generated, and
* With respect to each Actor that was cast in that Film, the Box Office and the Critical Acclaim awarded to that Actor arising from that Film.

“The world is changed because you are made of ivory and gold. The curves of your lips rewrite history.” (Velvet Goldmine, 1998)

(I tried to post “I’m Gonna Be a Producer”, but forgot to flag it as a Proposal.  The original post has been deliberately blanked.)

“In this town, there’s no such thing as bad press.”

Add a new Dynastic rule, called “Gossip”, reading as follows:

Each Actor may be the subject of zero, one or two “Gossip Stories”.  The Gossip Stories that each Actor is subject to will be tracked in two columns in a table on the GNDT, referred to as “Gossip Box 1” and “Gossip Box 2”.  The first Gossip Story that an Actor becomes subject to will be indicated in Gossip Box 1, and the second Gossip Story that an Actor becomes subject to will be indicated in Gossip Box 2.  However, if both Gossip Boxes for a particular Actor indicate active Gossip Stories and the Gossip Story indicated in that Actor’s Gossip Box 1 ceases to be active, then the Gossip Story indicated in that Actor’s Gossip Box 2 will be moved to Gossip Box 1.  If a particular Actor is subject to fewer than two Gossip Stories at a given time, then that Actor’s Gossip Box 2, or both Gossip Boxes 1 and 2, as appropriate, will contain a null placeholder ” - “.  If a particular Actor is subject to two Gossip Stories, and an event occurs that would cause the Actor to be subject to a new Gossip Story, then the Gossip Story indicated in that Actor’s Gossip Box 2 will be moved to Gossip Box 1, the Gossip Story thus displaced from Gossip Box 1 will cease to be active, and the new Gossip Story will be indicated in that Actor’s Gossip Box 2.  A particular Gossip Story may be effective with respect to any number of Actors.

The available Gossip Stories are:
* Difficult Diva
* Drunk as a Lord
* Kicked Out of Rehab
* Caught With Pants Down
* Slut!
* Political Crank
* Been Caught Stealin’
* The Kid Is Not My Son
* It’s Not a Cult, It’s a Religion
* Ugly Divorce
* Just Plain Loony

The idea here is that events or circumstances might cause an Actor to become subject to particular Gossip Events, which could have positive or negative effects.  Subsequent proposals can detail the manner in which Gossip Events become associated with particular Actors, the manner in which they can cease to be effective, and the specific effects that they have on other game mechanics.

Hey, I’d like to be unidled, please. Quorum goes up by one, I believe.

Angry Grasshopper, that star of such recent favorites as “Pirates of Nomic”, “Voices in Excalabur’s Head”, “A Dinosaur ate my Philosopher!” and “The Gostak Distimmery”, is on site and ready to take up whichever roles, villian or hero, that are needed.

</sensationalism>

I’m unidle. Quorum either increases by one, or it doesn’t.

I’d give this a shot.

Add a new rule called Wealth:

Each Actor has a Wealth number tracked in the GNDT. Wealth is measured in X units.

All comments containing For votes should also contain a nomination for the unit. The nomination that is mentioned most will replace “X units” when this Proposal is enacted. If there is a tie, the winner is decided at the discretion of the Investor.
We can add salaries, movie jobs and other wealth-related things later. This creates a good and realistic framework.

I was looking at the GNDT to see what quorum was, and I noticed that several active players aren’t currently listed. I’ll assume that the active player list supersedes the GNDT, but it would be nice to see that at least all of the players who have been voting on current proposals listed there.

Add a new rule “Hometown”;

All Actors have a hometown tracked in the GNDT column “Hometown”. New Actors start with the hometown “LA”.

Occasionally any Actor may choose to change eir hometown to one of the below;

LA - Home of Hollywood and the elite red carpets.
New York - Home of Broadway and the sub sandwich.

Let’s see where this thing goes.  This post is an announcement of my arrival per Rule 1.2, Paragraph 1.

Repeal the rule “Filmography”, if it exists.

Enact a new rule, “Filmographies”:-

Each actor has a Filmography, which is stored in a wiki page called “Filmographies”. This is a list of the films that each Actor has starred in, the year of that film, and the role that they played in it.

Any film listed in a Filmography must exist on IMDB [www.imdb.com] and a link should be provided.

A role specified for a film may be either:-

• “Extra”
• “Nth Minor Character” (where “N” is any number, and “Minor Character” is a generic role such as “Hoodlum” or “Fireman” - eg. “4th Zombie”)
• A named role that appears in the IMDB credits of the film.

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if they have not already done so in the previous four days, with the following restrictions:-

• A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
• A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

(“Earlier films” are those with an earlier year than the film being added.)

If anyone Filmographies exist when this proposal is enacted, they are blanked.

Add a new Dynastic Rule. Call it “The Order of Things”

Each Actor has a role, selected from one of fifteen options, tracked in the GNDT called “role”. Roles which appear closer to “Unemployed” are considered less favorable, and roles which appear closer to “Superstar” are considered more favorable. All actor’s start with the role of “Day Time TV Voice Actor”.

Roles are as follows:
*Unemployed
*Day Time TV Voice Actor
*Soap Opera Actor
*Prime Time TV Supporting Actor
*Prime Time TV Lead Actor
*Low Grade Movie Voice Actor
*Low Grade Movie Supporting Actor
*Standard Movie Voice Actor
*Low Grade Movie Lead Actor
*Standard Movie Supporting Actor
*Blockbuster Movie Voice Actor
*Standard Movie Lead Actor
*Blockbuster Movie Supporting Actor
*Blockbuster Movie Lead Actor
*Superstar

Add the following rule:

Once every 72 hours, but not more than once in a 24-hour period, an Actor may Audition.  This is done by rolling a d100.  On a roll of 1-5, the Actor cannot get a part and becomes slightly less popular; eir Role becomes one level less favorable.  On a 6-20, e does not get a part, and there is no effect.  On 21-30, the actor gets a part in a flop; eir Role becomes one level less favorable.  On a 31-65, ey star in an average movie; eir role does not change.  On a 66-95, ey star in a popular movie; eir Role becomes one level more favorable.  On a 96-100, ey star in a blockbuster; eir role becomes one level more favorable and ey can request another Role immediately, if ey wish.

If the Rule “The Order of Things” does not exist, this Proposal does nothing.
The two no-parts have the same effects now as two kinds of movie, but they can have different effects if money comes in or in other similar situations.
EDIT:Oh snap, kind-of-conflicting proposals.  Had already started writing when Chindogu posted.  They could be reconciled, but I’d have to rewrite this…

Create a new rule entitled Filmography.

Each actor has a filmography.  This is a list of the past films they have played a role in and the role that they played.  The filmographys for each actor will be maintained on the wiki.  Any film listed in the filmography must exist on IMDB [www.imdb.com] and a link should be provided.  No two actors have performed in the same film. 

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

Any actor who has less than 10 films in eir filmography may add a film and a role at any time, provided the film has not already been added by another actor.

Create a wiki Page for the filmography.  This should be linked from the sidebar, and from the rule just created.

I’m back in a Nomic frame of mind, having been giving the Dvorak site a revamp recently. Hello. Quorum rises to 11.

Hopefully for real this time - Quorum remains 10.

Add a new rule to the Ruleset entitled “Moolah”:

Each Actor has a Wealth number. This is tracked in a GNDT column called “Wealth”. It is measured in dollars.

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the text “Dollars? Boooorrrring”, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, then replace the word “Dollars” with “HollyBucks”, or another suggestion contained in a comment. Though I haven’t included much that money could be used for, it makes a good starting point.

Add a new Dynastic rule called “The order of things”

Each Actor has one of fifteen current role, tracked in the GNDT called “role”. Roles which appear lower on the role’s list are considered to be more favorable, and those that are lower are considered to be less favorable. All actor’s start with the role of “Day Time TV Voice Actor”. Roles can change because of the rules, but no rule may cause an actor’s role to increase or decrease by more than one level at any given time.

Roles are as follows:
*Unemployed
*Day Time TV Voice Actor
*Soap Opera Actor
*Prime Time TV Supporting Actor
*Prime Time TV Lead Actor
*Low Grade Movie Voice Actor
*Low Grade Movie Supporting Actor
*Standard Movie Voice Actor
*Low Grade Movie Lead Actor
*Standard Movie Supporting Actor
*Blockbuster Movie Voice Actor
*Standard Movie Lead Actor
*Blockbuster Movie Supporting Actor
*Blockbuster Movie Lead Actor
*Superstar

Upon passage of this proposal, the mode of speech known as Spivak will be banned, because we can’t be walking around the streets of L.A. talking like that.

Upon passage of this proposal, there will be created another class of player, called Agent, whose job is to negotiate deals between Actors and The Investors, as well as the Emperor, or whatever Doremi is calling himself; and said Agent shall be paid a Commission of 15% of Actor’s salary for every sort of Contract he successfully negotiates, whatever that will eventually mean; and that I get to be an Agent, ‘cause it was my idea.

Create GNDT columns entitled ‘Looks’, ‘Talent’ and ‘Presence’.

Create a dynastic rule entitled “We’ve all got Presence”, with the following text:

Actors have three attributes (which take all rational values) and are as follows:
Looks This attribute encasulates how much the public enjoys looking at an Actor.
Talent This attribute encapsulates how good an Actor is at, well, acting.
Presence This atribute reflects the amount of “Presence” an Actor has on-screen. 

These values are tracked in the GNDT, and 0 is an average score for all people. All actors start with 0.1 Presence.  Within 24 hours of entering the game, or within 24 hours of enacting this rule, whichever comes later, any actor may opt to set eir Looks and Talent to any values for which Looks squared plus Talent squared is 1 or less.

So, while I was reading through the ruleset to do the search-and-replace on the term ‘Olympian’ and ‘Coach’ (and keep the grammar correct), I noticed that the glossary has a line in it that reads terribly.

Replace the second bullet point in the glossary, which reads

Rules which trigger on Enactment or Failure of a Proposal are the responsibility of the acting Admin, who is responsible to check if Quorum is met at the moment of the Enactment.

With

Rules which trigger upon the Enacment or Failure of a Proposal are the responsibility of the Admin who Enacts or Fails it.

Doremi:

If you want to fiddle with the colour scheme/graphics, just let me know and I’ll get it sorted for you: sending an e-mail via the panel should work, or a private message. 

You may want to propose some stuff to get the theme rolling.

You other people:
propose some stuff.

I’m ‘a working on an idea..

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to LA. You all might have gotten here a different way, but none of that matters now. Some of you have got talent. Some of you got looks. What you all have is presence. But there is only so much room for stars on Hollywood and Vine. So step up to the plate, and be prepared to bat a thousand, or be prepared to pack your bags and go home. Only one of you will get the deal with my studio. Every actor for eirself!

Doremi (the one with the money)

Change Olympian/Olympians to Actor/Actors
Change Coach to The Investor
Repeal all Dynastic Rules

Could The High and Mighty Doremi please post eir High and Mighty Ascension Address?

JoshuaGross has not voted since 22 Jan, and is now idle.  Fidelio is next in line to go idle (at 0311 UTC on the 3rd), but since there are no voting opportunities while we await the AA, we should be a little generous and wait a little longer than that, I think.

Hello everyone!

I just got an email from someone here (I haven’t looked at the database to see who it is yet) requesting the admin password. Have we made a new admin? If this problem is not solved, reply here and I’ll set you up with whatever you need.

no making proposals, no voting on proposals, no game actions.

thank you.

Add to rule 2.11 “Act of Contrition”;

If an Olympian is granted forgiveness by 3 or more other Olympians, e loses the inability (e gained by cheating) to participate in olympic events.

As This rule passes I (The Doctor) is granted forgiveness by all olympians who voted FOR this proposal.

Me: (3*2+2*1+1*1)*2 = 18
McNally: (3*2+2*2+1*1)= 11

I have a score greeater than McNally, and therefore, I guess, I win, according to rule 2.7.

Add to rule 2.11 “Act of Contrition;

If an Olympian is granted forgiveness by 3 or more other Olympians, e loses the inability (e gained by cheating) to participate in olympic events.

As This rule passes I (The Doctor) is granted forgiveness by all olympians who voted FOR this proposal.