BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Also, happy belated Thanksgiving to Canadians, happy early Thanksgiving to US Americans, happy early Hanukkah (or however you’re supposed to spell that) to Jews, merry early Christmas to non-Jewish US Americans, and happy early Christmas to non-Jewish non-US-Americans.

Okay, I think I got all the major holidays there.

Remove the term beginning with the word “suffusion”, along with its definition, from the Dynastic Glossary rule.

Shem hasn’t posted a comment for over a week, and goes idle, per Rule 1.2. Quorum remains eight.

Create a new rule “[Trivial] Memetic Victory”:

If a Player’s name appears thirty or more times on the Dynastic Ruleset, that Player has achieved victory.

If Proposal “Not a Word from our Sponsor” fails, this proposal does nothing.

Create a new rule “Rule Shaking [6 Points]”:

As a daily action a Player may attempt to Shake one rule or sub-rule (know as the Targeted Rule) that has no sub-rules itself. In order to start Shaking, that Player rolls DICEX twice in the GNDT, when X is the number of words on the Targeted Rule. Then, that Player finds the words whose appearance in the Targeted Rule match the results of the rolled DICE. The Player may then, exchange 1 letter from the first word with 1 letter on the second word, but only if both of the new words actually exist in the English language. If they do, the Shaking succeeds; otherwise it fails.

Some rules are Unshakable and cannot be Targeted Rules. All non-dynastic rules are Unshakable. A rule is also Unshakable if it contains any “suffusion of yellow”.

In Rule 2.2.3, replace “Every 5 rounds there will be an election of the Leader of Blognomic. Any player may open the election by making a post to the blog entitled “Election” if one is not currently open, which shall be stickied.” with:-

As a weekly action, a Player may open an election - if there is not already an election in progress, and if no election has already been held that week - by making a sticky post to the blog with the title “Election”.

Also replace “Five rounds after the close of the previous election,” with:-

After 48 hours,

And after “shall become the Leader of Blognomic”, add:-

This rule shall be updated to reflect the new Leader.

The current Leader is Kevan.

Add a new subrule called subnomic to Ruleset theft:

For every 10 points a player earns in Random Wyrd Association, they shall be award one point in Blognomic, to be noted in the GNDT.

The name of this Subgame is “Wikirace #1”. It has a Stake of 4 Points.

To play this game, a player must find the shortest path between a random article on Wikipedia, and the “Nomic” article. A path is defined as the number of article links that must be clicked to take the user from the starting article to the target article. (The clicked links must be in the body of the article, and cannot include a page starting with “Special:” or “Category:”. Players must not edit links into articles used in their path, during the Subgame, nor encourage other people to add those links.)

The game has three phases; Signup, Declaration and Reveal. Each phase must last at least 24 hours, and begins or ends whenever Kevan announces in comments to this post that the phase has begun or ended.

• During the Signup phase, any Player may join the Subgame. (Players who join after the Signup phase are inelegible to win.)
• At the start of the Declaration phase, Kevan shall select a random Wikipedia article and announce it in the comments. During the Declaration phase, any Player who has joined the game may post the length of their Wikirace path from this article to the target article, as a comment.
• During the Reveal phase, any Player who posted the length of their Wikirace path may post a list of the articles that make up a path of that length from the starting article to the target article, so long as this does not duplicate an earlier list of articles posted by another Player.

When the Reveal phase ends, the Player with the shortest valid Wikirace path (excluding those who failed to post a path length, or who broke any other rules of the Subgame) is the winner of that Subgame. If this would mean that more than one Player is the winner, the Player who joined the game earliest is instead the winner. (The GM is considered to have joined the game after all other Players.)

In Rule 2.4.2 (Sponsored Rules), replace “If a sponsored Rule (or a sub-rule of the sponsored rule) that has a fee defines an action, whenever that action is taken, the Sponsor of that rule is awarded an amount of points equal to the amount of that fee.” with:-

If a sponsored Rule (or a sub-rule of the sponsored rule) that has a fee defines an action, whenever that action is taken by a Player other than the Sponsor, that Player may optionally pay only half the fee (rounding down) instead of the full fee. If they do so, the Sponsor of that rule is awarded an amount of points equal to the amount paid.

Add a new Subrule to the Rule entitled “Ruleset Theft”.  Call the subrule “Legal Judgment” and give it the following text:

A legal Judgment is either “TRUE”, “FALSE”, or “UNDECIDED”. The Judgment may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgment itself.

Change JeffSheets’s name to Josh.

If the rule “Sesquipedalophilia” exists, reword it to:-

A rule is Brief if it contain no words longer than nine letters, with hyphenated words counting as separate words. If a proposal would create a Brief rule, or would amend an existing non-Brief rule such that it became Brief, then any Player may Veto that proposal, as if they were the Leader.

I have hit the wall of caring this week, for some reason.  I had a cool proposal or two all ready, waiting on another prop to enact, and then… couldn’t be bothered actually proposing it. 

That means it’s time to step away for a bit.  I’ll try to get that MediaWiki upgrade done, but I need to talk to 75th Trombone about it. 

Therefore, I ask to be idled after my most recent vote is counted (upon the long-word-proposal, I believe). 
Cheers,
Excalabur.

In rule 2.2.2, The First Speaker, remove the limitation on Attempting to Speak that makes it a weekly action.

Add the following to the end of the rule:

If a Player is the Speaker of a Dynasty and either cannot make it meet the criteria listed above, or no longer wishes to Speak for that Dynasty, they may spend 5 points to resign as Speaker of that Dynasty.

The admin who enacts this proposal must roll DICEX (X being the number of players) and the player whose position matches the result becomes the first Game Master

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

If all Players not on a certain Team are on Teams Friendly towards that Team, the player on that Team with the highest Score achieves victory.  If two players would simultaneously achieve victory under this rule and neither of them is the Leader, only the one with the higher score achieves victory.

If a Player wins by this Rule, they are encouraged to show favoritism towards their teammates (or those who were their teammates at the end of the dynasty) during the first two weeks of the next dynasty.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposal contain the text “No Favorites”, omit the last sentence of the new Rule.
If a majority of EVCs on this proposals also contain the text “colorless”, the Rule this proposal creates does not become a team rule.

Create a new subrule, “Sesquipedalophilia”, to rule 2.2 “Ruleset Theft”:

Each future rule contains a word of length at least ten letters, with hyphenated words counting as two separate words.

If the proposal “Why we hate Team Indigo” failed, this proposal does nothing.

Add a new subrule to the Rule entitled “Teams (Indigo)”.  Call the subrule “Kidnapping [20 points]” and give it the following text:

As a Weekly Action, a Player may Kidnap a member of a Team that their own Team is Unfriendly towards.  When they do so, the Kidnapped player’s Team is changed to match that of the player who Kidnapped them.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposals also contain the text “colorless”, the Rule this proposal creates does not become a team rule.

Add a new subrule to Rule 2.8 (Teams), called “Team Eviction [2 Points]”:-

As a daily action, a Player may Evict a Player who shares a Team with them, so long as that Team has more Players than any other Team, and the Evicting Player has more Points than the Evicted Player. When a Player is Evicted, the Evicter rolls DICE6 in the GNDT - the Evicted Player is assigned to the team whose name’s position in the team list (skipping the Evicter’s Team) matches the rolled number.

Reword Rule 2.9 (Games) to:-

As a weekly action, any Player may start a Subgame with themselves as its GM, by spending one or more Points and making a story post with the title prefix “Subgame:”. A Subgame post must include the following information:-

• The name of the Subgame.
• Any rules for playing the Subgame.
• A definition of how and when the Winner will be determined.
• The Stake (a value equal to number of points paid by the GM during the Subgame’s creation).

Once a Subgame post has been made, and before it has been won, any Player may join the defined Subgame by spending a number of Points equal to the Subgame’s Stake, and then posting a comment to that post containing a FOR icon. The GM of a Subgame is automatically considered to be playing that Subgame.

The Pot is equal to the Stake, multiplied by the number of Players who are playing the Subgame. The first player to achieve the specified win condition in a Subgame they have joined has won that Subgame. Upon winning a Subgame, the winner is awarded Points equal to that Subgame’s Pot.

Oranjer hasn’t commented for a week, and goes idle. Quorum remains nine.

Randomly choose two Active Players and swap their team values.

When this becomes Enacted, the enacting admin shall create a Viral proposal with a body identical to this proposal’s and a title of “[Viral]: Team” followed by one or two words of their choice.

Add a new subrule to the rule “Teams”.  Call the subrule “Team Politics” and give it the following text:

Each Team is Friendly towards the two teams adjacent to it in the list {Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet}, with Red and Violet considered adjacent.

Each Team is Neutral towards the two other teams with whom they share a Friendly team.

Each Team is Unfriendly towards the two teams they are neither Friendly nor Neutral towards.

Whenever a non-Trivial Team Proposal fails, each Player who is a member of a Team Unfriendly towards that Proposal’s Team gains 1 Point.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposal contain the text “not yet”, omit the last sentence of the new rule.

In Rule 2.8.2, replace “every other Player whose Team is the same as that of the author of the Proposal” with:-

every other Player whose Team matches that of the Proposal

Replace the contents of the “Glossary” section with the contents of the “New Glossary” section at this wiki history page. Should any of the new glossary sections belong to a Team as a result of this enactment, they shall instead belong to no Team.

If “Glossary Reform” passed, add the definition of “Story Post” to the Keywords section, as specified in that proposal.

In Rule 1.9 (Victory and Ascension), replace “and that any keywords will be replaced with new theme-appropriate terms” with:-

and/or that the keywords “Player” and “Leader” will be replaced with new theme-appropriate terms.

Add a new Subrule to the Rule entitled “Viral Proposals”.  Call it “Custom Virals [5 points]” and give it the following text:

As a weekly action, a Player may create a Viral Proposal.  That Viral proposal must contain two sections: a Payload and a Vector.

The Payload shall be a list of repeatable changes to the Ruleset and/or Gamestate.

The Vector shall be text of the form “When this becomes Enacted, the enacting admin shall create a Viral proposal with a body identical to this proposal’s and a title of ‘[Viral]: ***** (X)’ Where X is 1 plus the largest number in this proposal’s Title.”, with ***** replaced by an appropriate word or phrase of the Player’s choice.

The Title of the Viral Proposal shall be the same as that of the Proposal it would create if enacted, except that X shall be equal to 1.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposals also contain the text “colorless”, the Rule this proposal creates does not become a team rule.

Randomly choose two Active Players and swap their team values.

When this becomes Enacted, the enacting admin shall create a Viral proposal with a body identical to this proposal’s and a title of “[Viral]: Team” followed by one or two words of their choice.

Replace the contents of the “Glossary” section with the contents of the “New Glossary” section at this wiki history page. Should any of the new glossary sections belong to a Team as a result of this enactment, they shall instead belong to no Team.

If “Glossary Reform” passed, add the definition of “Story Post” to the Keywords section, as specified in that proposal.

Rune Master Xan goes idle. Quorum remains ten.

In the Rule entitled “Trivial Proposals”, change the text

it contains a statement to that effect, its title contains the text “[Trivial]” or at least half of the EVCs on that proposal contain the text “Trivial”

to

it contains a statement to that effect, its title contains the text “[Trivial]”, at least half of the EVCs on that proposal contain the text “Trivial” or it has no effect on the Ruleset upon enactment

In the Rule entitled “Team Rules”, change the text

Whenever a new rule is created

to

Whenever a new Dynastic rule is created

Add the following to the end of rule 2.1.4, Trivial Proposals:

The triviality of a proposal designated as trivial under the criteria above is overriden if at least half of the EVCs on that proposal contain the text “Nontrivial”.

Delete the last paragraph of 1.5 Enactment. 

Add, to the list of bullet points by which a proposal may be failed:

* The Leader has voted to VETO it

.

Add a new rule, titled “Scrabble [10 Points]”:

As a weekly action, a Player may add 1 word to the end of this rule.

Create a sub-rule “Player Pages” under rule “Ruleset Theft”

A player must have a page in the player category BlogNomic wiki at the time he places a vote. The page must have the name of the player as the page’s title. Votes made during times when a player does not have such a page in the player category wiki are considered null and void not counted for the purposes of enacting or failing Proposals. This rule takes precedence over all other rules.

Add the following sentence to the end of rule “Buying Votes (orange)”:

If a Player’s vote on a Proposal cannot be counted due to the effects of rule “Player Pages”, that Player cannot buy additional votes.

Enact a new Rule, “King Anthony’s Crown”:-

Arthexis may not veto proposals. This takes precedence over all other rules.

After enactment, remove any Team ownership of the rule.

Create a new rule “Victory Coalition”:

For each Team, there is a number known as a Team Score, which is equal to the Score of all the Players of that Team, plus 20 for each rule owned by that Team. When the Team Score of a Team is equal to or greater than 500 AND each Player belonging to that Team has a Score of at least 100, the Player belonging to that Team who has the highest Score amongst that Team has achieved victory.

Change rule Victory Coalition so that it is no longer owned by any team.

If at least half the EVCs on this proposal contain the text “sporting chance”, each Player is awarded 20 points.

Bucky has achieved victory in the current dynasty.

Rename the Glossary Rule “Flavor Text” to “Main Glossary”. 

Move all the ruletext in the Glossary that is not part of the rules “Timespans”, “Keywords”, “Dice” or “IEEE” into the rule “Main Glossary” in the order it appears.

Finally, add the following text to the end of the Rule entitled “Main Glossary”

*A ‘’‘Story Post’‘’ is an Official Post that is not a member of any specific category of Official Posts mentioned or defined in a Core Rule (excluding Official Post).

Create a new rule “Victory Coalition”:

For each Team, there is a number known as a Team Score, which is equal to the Score of all the Players of that Team, plus 20 for each rule owned by that Team. When the Team Score of a Team is equal to or greater than 500 AND each Player belonging to that Team has a Score of at least 100, the Player belonging to that Team who has the highest Score amongst that Team has achieved victory.

Each Player who’s counted vote on this Proposal is FOR and does not belong to Team Orange is awarded 12 points.

Randomly choose two Active Players and swap their team values.

When this becomes Enacted, the enacting admin shall create a Viral proposal with a body identical to this proposal’s and a title of “[Viral]: Team” followed by one or two words of their choice.

If Arthexis is on the Indigo team, move him to the Violet team.

If the proposal “Telling Arthexis to shove a brick up his nose” passed, the rest of this proposal has no effect.

Enact a new Rule as a subset of Rule 2.1 (Points), called “The Real Speed Limit”:-

No Player can have their score absolutely increased by more than 100 during a single day (which is defined as a 24 hour period starting at midnight UTC). If a Player’s score would be absolutely increased by more than 100 during a day, their score is instead increased by the maximum amount which doesn’t cause their score to be absolutely increased by more than 100 that day (this can be zero).

(After being enacted, this rule shall not belong to any Team.)

Enact a new Rule called “Arthexis Notices Something Fun”:-

As a daily action, Kevan may Throw a Halfbrick. Upon doing so, all players are exempt from the effects of the rule “Speed Limit” for the remainder of the game. If the rule “Speed Limit” no longer exists, repeal this rule.

Create a new Dynastic Rule.  Call it “The Temporary Rule” and give it the following text:

If at any moment a rule entitled “The Temporary Rule” exists, all instances of the text string “30” become “100” in any rule whose title contains the text string “Speed Limit”. 
Immediately thereafter, the rule entitled “The Temporary Rule” is repealed.

“The Temporary Rule” shall not become a Team Rule.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposal also contain the text “punish him”, fine arthexis 10 points.

Add a new Subrule to Rule 2.2.  Call it “Metadynastic Theme” and give it the following text:

There exists a Theme. The Theme may only be changed through Proposal or CfJ. The Theme is a text string which is only known to the Acting Leader, and whose MD5 hash is af7463c8a8b1c4330520bb476f711445

Change rule “Team Rules” so that where it reads “A rule is owned by a Team if it contains the name of a Team in brackets as part of its title.”, instead it reads:

A rule is owned by a Team if it contains the name of a Team in parenthesis as part of its title. Those parenthesis and the text inside are not considered part of the rule’s title when the rule is referred to.

And make it so that it has retroactively read like that since the rule was first created.

Create a subrule of Ruleset Theft titled “Members” with the following text:

Any nomic may become a member Player of United Nomics Blognomic by having their Ambassador post a message to the group stating its intent to join.

Create a subrule of Ruleset Theft titled “Members” with the following text:

Any nomic may become a member Player of United Nomics Blognomic by having their Ambassador post a message to the group stating its intent to join.

The admin who enacts this shall make a comment in the GNDT of “De-teaming DICEX”, where X is the number of Team Rules.  The Nth Team Rule in the Ruleset (where N is the result of the DICE roll) ceases to be a Team Rule and has its title modified accordingly.

When this becomes Enacted, the enacting admin shall create a Viral proposal with a body identical to this proposal’s and a title of “[Viral]: Public Domain Leakage (X)” Where X is 1 plus the largest number in this proposal’s Title.

To the last paragraph of 2.2 Ruleset Theft, add the sentence ‘A Theft proposal shall not be considered Trivial unless half of the EVCs on the proposal contain the string “Trivial”.’

In Rule 2.2 (Ruleset Theft), replace “Submit a proposal” with “Submit a non-Trivial proposal”.

Fail any Trivial Theft proposals which are pending at the time of this proposal’s enactment.

Create a new rule entitled “Buying Votes”, with the text

Players may buy additional rules on a proposal, according to the details given in this rule’s sub-rules, by making a comment to the proposal containing a vote icon and text explicitly invoking the rule under which the votes were bought.  When votes have been so bought on a pending proposal, quorum shall be calculated by adding the number of votes so bought to the number of active Players, dividing by two, rounding down and adding one.

The subrules of this rule are always overridden by the text of this rule, that is, the restrictions and instructions given above shall apply whenever a player buys a vote according to one of this rule’s subrules.

Create a sub-rule to “Buying votes” entitled “Bought Veto [30 Points]”, with the text

As a daily action, a Player may buy veto for a proposal, with the same effect as if they were the leader.

The first election under the new rules.  This election closes at the start of the 22nd of October.

Add the following subrule, titled “Shifting Definitions [75 Points]”, Rule 2.7, Dynastic Glossary:

As a weekly action, a Player may remove one definition from the rule “Dynastic Glossary”. As a weekly action, a Player may add one definition to the rule “Dynastic Glossary”, so long as the word being defined is not already defined by the rules.

Add a new rule, “Games”:

As a weekly action, the Game Master (GM) may start a Game by making a story post with the word Game in the title. The story post must contain at least one Win Condition:
* Win Conditions: These describe how to win the Game.
Once the Game has started, all players who are not the Game Master’s teammates may play the Game, and must follow the Game Rules (The GM’s teammates are not considered players for the purposes of a Game. When one team has achieved all of the Win Conditions, they win the game, and all players on that team are awarded 15 points.
Every Monday at 00:00:01, the Game Master must roll DICEX where X is the number of players in the GNDT (excluding themselves). A player who is not the GM whose position in the GNDT matches the rolled number becomes the Game Master.

Repeal Rule 2.1.5

If at least half of all EVCs on this proposal contain the text “Higher Limit”, instead change all instances of “30” in Rule 2.1.5 to “100”.

Either way, if the proposals “Maximum Effect” and “Preventing Infinite Point Scams” are both Enacted, adjust players’ scores to match what they would be if the rule “Speed Limit” were not in effect when “Maximum Effect” was Enacted.

Create a new subrule to “Ruleset Theft”, “A Tighter Limit”:

At any time, any player may propose one and only one change to the game, only if he or she has no other pending proposal.  If the player has a pending proposal, he or she may not make a new proposal until the pending proposal has been evaluated by the admin.  To make a new proposal, create a new post on the blog.  The posts on the blog homepage form the change queue.

Create a new rule “Directives”:

Proposals may contain sentences that start with “>>”, which are known as Directives. Inserting a Directive in a Proposal (the Modified Proposal) is an action that can only be taken by it’s author, at the time his or her Modified Proposal is created. Directives may only be inserted as allowed by the sub-rules to this rule.

Each Directive has a name which is written after the “>>” characters, and an effect which is listed in the sub-rule that defines it. The name may contain variables in all caps, which must be defined in the Directive’s effect. The effect of a Directive can affect the way the Modified Proposal is enacted or failed, how its votes are counted, or modify the the points awarded or fined when it ceases to be Pending, etc.

When a Modified Proposal is enacted, all text contained in its directives is ignored by the Admin performing the enactment (unless that Directive’s effect explicitly states otherwise).

Create a new sub-rule “Trivial Tax [3 Points]” to rule “Directives”:

Name: Tax Trivial votes with 1 Point.
Effect: Including the text “Trivial” on a vote to the Modified Proposal is an action that has a fee of 1 Point.

Create a new sub-rule “Ward Proposal [3 Points]”

Name: Proposal warded against PLAYERNAME.
Effect: PLAYERNAME can be the name of any one Player. PLAYERNAME cannot vote on this Proposal (and if he or she does, that vote is not counted). If this directive has been inserted on the same Proposal more than twice, it has no effect instead.

Create a new sub-rule “Self-destruct [3 Points]”

Name: Proposal can be failed on Self-Kill
Effect: If the author of the Modified Proposal votes AGAINST it, any Admin can fail it immediately (even if it’s not the last pending Proposal).

Add a new subrule to Rule 2.2 Ruleset Theft, titled “Time of effect (Red)”:

A proposal is adopted at the end of its voting period (if it is adopted at all), and takes full effect when The Leader says it does.

Create a new rule, entitled “Where to Do Things”, with the text

All actions under these rules must be accomplished by a public posting on the blog. The Leader may determine the location and nature of the blog.

Add a dynastic rule entitled: “Tabletown Mutable 13” as follows:

If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Leader (or Acting Leader’s) best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first Player unable to complete a turn is the winnermay declare Victory.  This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

There doesn’t seem to be an official method for collecting votes, so post ‘em here and we’ll assume posted votes are a subset of the actual votes.  Everyone except Excalabur has been nominated, and you currently need 137 votes to be elected.

Testing

Any player who voted against this proposal is awarded 10 points.
Any player who voted for this proposal is awarded 6 points.

Randomly choose two Active Players and swap their team values.

When this becomes Enacted, the enacting admin shall create a Viral proposal with a body identical to this proposal’s and a title of “[Viral]: Team” followed by one or two words of their choice.

Move sub-rule “2.2.4 Teams” so that it becomes a new rule on its own (sub-rule “2.2.4.1 Team Rules” becomes a sub-rule of the newly created rule).

Create a new sub-rule “Team Proposals [3 Points]” under rule “Teams”:

As a weekly action, a Player can create a Team Proposal, which is a special type of Proposal with the text “[Team X]” on its title, where X is the Team of the Player creating it. A Team Proposal cannot be Trivial. When a Team Proposal is failed or enacted, all Points awarded or fined to its author are also awarded or fined accordingly to every other Player whose Team is the same as that of the author of the Proposal.

Create a new sub-rule “Team Swap [8 Points]” under rule “Teams”:

As a weekly action, a Player (the Swapping Player) can change their Team to the Team of any other Player. Then, each other Player whose Team is the same as the Swapping Player’s new Team is awarded 2 points.

Give the following players 32 points:

ais523
arthexis
Bucky
Darknight
Darth Cliche
JeffSheets
Kevan
Oranjer
Oze
Qwazukee
Rodlen
Rune Master Xan
Shem
spikebrennan
Wakukee
Wooble
yuri_dragon_17

If any of the players above have claimed points as a result of nominating another player for an election, or are idle when this proposal is enacted, they do not receive any points under this proposal.

Delete 2.2.2 Elections. 
Replace it with

Every 5 rounds there will be an election of the Leader of Blognomic.  Any player may open the election by making a post to the blog entitled “Election” if one is not currently open, which shall be stickied.  As a comment to such a post, any player may make a comment voting for another player to become the Leader of Blognomic, or may vote for themselves if at least one other player has already done so.  Any player may change their vote any number of times until voting closes, only their latest such vote shall count, as for the .

Five rounds after the close of the previous election, the current election shall become closed to voting, and the votes may be tallied at any time thereafter by any admin.  The player receiving the most votes, where each player has votes equal to their Points as of the close of the election (or 1 if their Point total is non-positive), shall become the Leader of Blognomic. 

The first election will close at (X).  Anytime after the first election closes, any Player may delete this paragraph.

Upon enaction, replace (X) above with the first midnight more than a Jiffy after this proposal passes.

Delete 2.2.2 Elections. 
Replace it with

Every 5 rounds there will be an election of the Leader of Blognomic.  Any player may open the election by making a post to the blog entitled “Election” if one is not currently open, which shall be stickied.  As a comment to such a post, any player may make a comment voting for another player to become the Leader of Blognomic, or may vote for themselves if at least one other player has already done so.  Any player may change their vote any number of times until voting closes, only their latest such vote shall count, as for the .

Five rounds after the close of the previous election, the current election shall become closed to voting, and the votes may be tallied at any time thereafter by any admin.  The player receiving the most votes, where each player has votes equal to their Points as of the close of the election (or 1 if their Point total is non-positive), shall become the Leader of Blognomic. 

The first election will close at (X).  Anytime after the first election closes, any Player may delete this paragraph.

Upon enaction, replace (X) above with the first midnight more than a Jiffy after this proposal passes.

I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, Oze
I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, Qwazukee
I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, Rodlen
I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, Rune Master Xan
I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, Shem
I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, spikebrennan
I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, Wakukee
I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, Wooble
I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, yuri_dragon_17

To avoid spamming the blog, I’ll just collect the rest of them here.  If someone objects, feel free to CfJ.  I’ll have a proposal up in a moment to fix the elections rule. 

Kevan still has my votes, whenever this elections ends.

I nominate, as leader of Blognomic, Oranjer

I nominate Darth Cliche to be the leader of Blognomic.

I nominate Bucky to be the leader of Blognomic

I nominate Arthexis to be the leader of blognomic.

I nominate Darknight to be the leader of blognomic.

I nominate ais523 to be the Leader of Blognomic

I nominate JeffSheets to be the Leader of Blognomic.

I nominate Kevan as the new leader of Blognomic.  He has my vote.

Add the following to the end of the second-to-last paragraph of the rule entitled “Ruleset Theft”, which ends “to mention the source of the rule created by a Theft Proposal in the Theft Proposal’s commentary.”:

If a player has performed the first three steps of the process detailed above, and determines that the rule that they have selected is unsuitable for BlogNomic, then they may abort the process at this point. They may not attempt to steal a rule for another jiffy after having done so.

Add the following as a sub-rule to rule 2.2, entitled An Alternative Scoring System

Any player may propose a change to the rules at any time, invoking this chain of events: (1) proposing the rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) upon the proposal passing, being awarded points calculated by subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of their proposal and multiply the result by the fraction of favorable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer, or, if the proposal is not passed, a penalty of 10 points, or all the player’s remaining points, whichever is less. (Players will not drop below zero points.)

To Rule 2.1.2, add:-

Idle Players may be fined as if they were non-Idle players. Such fines can only be processed when the Player ceases to be Idle.

If at least half of the EVCs on this proposal contain the phrase “Fine Arthexis four points”, fine Arthexis four points.

Now I remember why this template was a bunch of work: EE’s library on their site is actually quite small.  We’d have to hack on either of these a bit to make them fit.

As an alternative, going through our current templates and cleaning up may be just easier.

Here’s two possibilities (remember, evaluate layout, not colour scheme):
http://expressionengine.com/files/templates/view/firda_01/ (ditch the inset box)
and
http://expressionengine.com/files/templates/view/firda_03/ (buys us a shorter sidebar at the cost of some width.  I’d likely make the sidebars fixed width and use up the rest for the middle column.)

The first one lets us put a bunch of our links that we use all the time on the horizontal bar.

Add a new sub-rule “Speed Limit” to rule “Points”:

No Player can have their score absolutely increased by more than 30 during a single day (which is defined as a 24 hour period starting at midnight UTC). If a Player’s score would be absolutely increased by more than 30 during a day, their score is instead increased by the maximum amount which doesn’t cause their score to be absolutely increased by more than 30 that day (this can be zero).

I got bored with not playing. Unidle me please.

In the Rule entitled “Viral Proposals”, change the text

Viral Proposals can only be created by other Proposals or by rules that explicitly state that they create Viral Proposals.

to

Viral Proposals can only be created as directed by other Proposals or by Dynastic Rules.

Then, add a new Subrule to the Rule entitled “Viral Proposals”.  Call it “Immune System” and give it the following text:

If no Player has previously done so in the current week, any Player may post a Viral proposal.  That Viral Proposal’s Title shall be “[Viral]:The X Purge” where X is the ordinal immediately after the one in the title of the most recent proposal created under this rule, or ‘First’ if there is no such proposal.  The Viral Proposal’s text shall be “Fail all pending Viral proposals other than this one.”

Add a subrule to the rule that permits players to steal a rule, and title that subrule “Wavenomic I”. Give the new subrule the following text:

1.101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-115 (immutable)1.1 - 1.10 (Core) and 201-215 (mutable)2.1-2.7 (Dynastic).

If we were to automate vote counting, we could maybe even make it so that sidebar proposal links change color as soon as they can be passed or failed, rather than when they time out.

We could also make it so that they turn red when they should fail, green when they should pass.

Add a new rule called “Victory Condition”:

If, at any time, any Player has at least 1200 Points, the Player who has the highest Points acheives victory.

Add a new rule, “Games”:

As a weekly action, the Game Master (GM) may start a Game by making a story post with the word Game in the title. The story post must contain at least one Win Condition, and may contain Game Rules:
* Game Rules (optional): These rules must be treated as if they were Dynastic Rules for the duration of the Game, except that all other rules take precedence over them.
* Win Conditions: These describe how to win the Game.
The Game rules cannot state that players may achieve victory.
Once the Game has started, all players who are not the Game Master’s teammates may play the Game, and must follow the Game Rules (The GM’s teammates are not considered players for the purposes of a Game. When one team has achieved all of the Win Conditions, they win the game, and all players on that team are awarded 15 points.
Every Monday at 00:00:01, the Game Master must roll DICEX where X is the number of players in the GNDT (excluding themselves). A player who is not the GM whose position in the GNDT matches the rolled number becomes the Game Master.

Playing around with the Xtranormal text-to-animation tool this afternoon, and looking for some two-person dialogue to feed in, I thought I’d try dramatising the recent DoV from JeffSheets (the text is verbatim, the gestures and camera cuts were done manually). Hearing two satnav voices arguing is never going to be very compelling, but it’s worth waiting for “I had my own blog” 54 seconds from the end.

Create a new dynastic rule, entitled “Buying Votes”, with the text

Players may buy additional rules on a proposal, according to the details given in this rule’s sub-rules, by making a comment to the proposal containing a vote icon and text explicitly invoking the rule under which the votes were bought.  When votes have been so bought on a pending proposal, quorum shall be calculated by adding the number of votes so bought to the number of active Players, dividing by two, rounding down and adding one. No proposal shall be enacted if votes have been bought thereupon for 24 hours after its posting.

The subrules of this rule are always overridden by the text of this rule, that is, the restrictions and instructions given above shall apply whenever a player buys a vote according to one of this rule’s subrules.

As a sub-rule to “Buying votes”, add a subrule, entitled “Two For Votes [7 Points]”, with the text

Twice per proposal, a Player may buy an additional vote FOR the proposal.

As a sub-rule to “Buying votes”, add a subrule, entitled “Three Against Votes [5 Points]”, with the text

Thrice per proposal, a Player may buy an additional vote AGAINST the proposal.

As a sub-rule to “Buying votes”, add a subrule, entitled “Bought Veto [30 Points]”, with the text

As a daily action, a Player may buy veto for a proposal, with the same effect as if they were the leader.

In Rule 1.2, amend the first rule by replacing the first sentence of the last paragraph, which currently reads “Some Players are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8, Idle Players are not counted as Players.”, with “Some Players are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 1.10, Idle Players are not counted as Players.”

Reword the rule “First Speaker” to:-

A Player may be the Speaker for a single Dynasty of BlogNomic. This is tracked in the GNDT, as the number of that Dynasty. (A Dynasty’s number is its position in the “Dynastic History” section of the BlogNomic wiki main page - a section which may not be edited or duplicated while this rule exists. Round One and Metadynasties are considered to be Dynasties for the purpose of this rule.)

A Speaker’s job is to ensure that the Dynasty’s page in the BlogNomic wiki contains the following information:-

• A copy of the Ascension Address, if one was made.
• A list of at least three of the players who took part in that Dynasty.
• A link to a copy of the final ruleset, hosted on the BlogNomic wiki.
• At least five proposals of interest, with links (via archive.org if they were hosted on the deleted blogspot.com) and a one-sentence summary of what made them interesting.
• Details of how the dynasty ended.

If a Player is not a Speaker for a Dynasty, they may - as a weekly action - Attempt to Speak. To Attempt to Speak, a Player rolls DICE68 in the GNDT to select a Dynasty with the resulting number. If no other Player is the Speaker of that Dynasty, and if the Dynasty’s wiki page does not meet the criteria in the list above, then the rolling Player becomes its Speaker. Otherwise, the player may either roll again, or end their Attempt to Speak.

If a Player is the Speaker of a Dynasty and it meets the criteria listed above, that Player is awarded 10 points and ceases to be its Speaker.

JeffSheets shall be the Speaker of Round One, and the GNDT shall be updated to reflect this.

If the Dynastic History section of the BlogNomic wiki’s main page was edited or duplicated while this proposal was pending, revert the page to how it was on the 16th of October 2009.

In Rule 2.2.4.1 (Team Rules), replace “If there is any way in which the enactment of a proposal would amend or repeal a rule that is owned by a Team,” with:-

If there is any way in which the enactment of a proposal would amend or repeal a rule that is owned by a Team, and if the proposal was not made by a member of that Team, then

Amnistar hasn’t commented since 6pm on the 9th, and Anna never said anything other than “Could I be unidled please”, a week ago. (It’s probably worth making new players jump through the correct hoop to join, just to show that they appreciate how the game works and are going to be sticking around.)

Quorum drops to nine.

I’ve just changed “BlogNomic: The Fifth Metadynasty” back to “BlogNomic: {title}” in the “head” template, in order that individual blog entries have their title given in the <title> field - Googling around for old proposals, everything was coming up with the same title. (In fact, Google’s spidering of BlogNomic is something of a weird mess, with a lot of archive pages lacking the “/archive/” folder, but that’s a problem for another time.)

It looks like Darth changed this a few weeks ago, possibly in a failed attempt to retitle the main page (which takes its title from the “index” template instead). Is it maybe worth setting up a wiki talk page somewhere for this sort of discussion, so that we know who’s changed what, and why?

This DoV is coming from 2003.

Rule 2.2.2, The First Speaker, establishes me (JeffSheets) as the Speaker for the first game. Thus, the ruleset mandates that I am an entity within the first game, which must (for lack of other identifying details) be assumed to be the first game of BlogNomic. As a player in that game I am bound by its rules as well as the rules of the ruleset of the current round.

Rule 9 of the Round One ruleset states that I can claim either 10 or 2 gold for passing the proposal that changed my name; it doesn’t matter which, really, as Rule 21 says that “If each and every Subject possesses more Gold than the Emperor, then the Emperor’s Dynasty collapses into bankcruptcy and comes to an end. A new Dynasty begins with the richest Subject as its Emperor (resolve ties by having the previous Emperor choose).” As the only entity currently entitled under the ruleset to exist in Game 1, I have more gold than the Emperor (who does not exist) and may thus declare victory.

Idle me.

I refuse to admin any proposals until there is a rule giving me a reward for doing so! And I urge all other admins to do the same! (Except one, who will admin the proposal giving us the reward and admin the queue away, of course).

Create a new rule “Investments [2 Points]”:

As a daily action, any Player who is not the Acting Leader may Invest in a Proposal that has been Pending for 24 hours or less, by including the text “Investing” on any of their EVCs for that Proposal. If a Player does so, that Player is considered an Investor for that Proposal.

A Player cannot Invest on the Proposals he or she authored. A Player cannot Invest on a Proposal he or she is Sponsoring. An Admin cannot enact a Proposal for which he or she is an Investor, unless there are no other non-idle Admins that could enact it.

Whenever a Proposal passes, if there are three or less Investors for that Proposal, each Investor is awarded 5 Points.

Remove Rune Master Xan from the game, and bar him from rejoining.

Add a new subrule to the Rule entitled “Teams”.  Call it “Changing Teams [10 points]” and give it the following text:

A Player may change their Team to any other Team at any time.

i well join!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  lol

Append to Rule 2.1:

To spend points is to reduce one’s score. A player cannot spend points if their score after the spending would be negative.

Set Qwazukee’s Team to Blue.

I changed the Veto icon to the arrow, reversed.  It looks better on the row of icons, at least.

I also, while looking at the sidebar, moved it to the other side for a change of pace.  If anyone seriously objects, it can go back.

Kevan mentioned that he’d like the sidebar to run alongside the header.  Do others agree?

Create a new rule titled “Resignation” with the text:

The Leader may resign if e appoints a successor who agrees to serve as Leader until the end of the dynasty.

If there is a rule entitled “Ruleset Theft”, then:

replace the text in that rule that reads:

As a weekly action, a player may attempt to Steal a Rule.

with:

So long as there is not then Pending a Theft Proposal by the Player in question, and subject to the following, a player may attempt to Steal a Rule.

and set that rule’s Fee to [1 Point] by appropriately adding the label in the ruleset.

Enact a new rule, “Team Rules”, as a subrule of Rule 2.8 (Teams):-

A rule is owned by a Team if it contains the name of a Team in brackets as part of its title. A rule can be owned by multiple Teams.

Whenever a new rule is created as the result of a proposal, it becomes owned by the Team of the Player whose proposal created the rule, and should have the Team name appended in brackets to its title (if it is not already there).

If there is any way in which the enactment of a proposal would amend or repeal a rule that is owned by a Team, any member of that Team may vote to Veto that proposal. For the purposes of Rule 1.5, this is treated as if it were a Veto from the Leader.

In core rule “1.5 Enactment” change the sentence “The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (and the Ruleset and/or Gamestate updated to include the specified effects of that Proposal) if either of the following is true” so that instead it reads:

The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (by setting its status to Enacted) if either of the following is true

In the same rule, before the sentence “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true” insert another sentence that reads:

Then, immediately after the proposal is enacted, that Admin shall update the Ruleset and/or Gamestate in the manner specified by that Proposal. That Admin cannot perform any other action until those updates are complete.

In the same rule, change the sentence “The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true” so that it reads:

The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin (by either setting its status to Failed or Vetoed, depending on the reason for failure), if any of the following are true

Add a new dynastic rule (or subrule to Rule 2.2, if “Fencing” passed) called “Dynastic Rule Limit” with the following text:

At no time may there be more than 25 mutable Dynastic rules.

Create a new rule entitled “Reporting for duty (Blue)”:

Any natural person can become a Player.

Create a new dynastic rule, “Dynastic Glossary”:

The following terms have the following meanings:

contract

an agreement between players enforced by the rules

crime

something that is possible, but that the rules specify an explicit penalty for doing

disinterested

Trivial

emergency

A Hiatus with at least two CFJs created during it

in a timely manner

no more than 7 days late

Jiffy

36 hours

mackerel

One fifth of a Point

microhertz

Once in a length of time equal to 11 days, 13 hours, 46 minutes, 40 seconds

modest

likely to cause huge damage to the gamestate

monster

Any term mentioned in a large number of rules, but not defined

nweek

12 days, not counting time spent during a Hiatus

ordinance

A core rule

proosal

proposal

suffusion of yellow

whatever the relevant part of the rule in question said before it was amended to contain “suffusion of yellow”

round

72 hours

An Ascension Address corresponding to a successful DoV may optionally delete any number of definitions from this rule (or leave this rule untouched or repeal it, as normal).

Create a new dynastic rule, “Amending Proposals”:

In addition to the sorts of votes mentioned in the rule, “Voting”, players may also make AMEND votes (using the text :ARROW:). For all purposes except those specifically mentioned here, including enactment, an AMEND vote is identical to an AGAINST vote. However, if a player votes AMEND on their own proposal, this does not count as a self-kill, and therefore can be changed and does not necessarily make it possible to fail the proposal. Additionally, if a proposal has more counted AMEND than AGAINST votes, has fewer FOR votes than Quorum, has been open for voting for no more than 24 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed, its proposer may edit it even if it has been commented on; immediately (within about 5 minutes) after doing so, the proposer must comment to the proposal stating that it has been edited. All FOR votes on a proposal that were made before the comment stating that it was edited do not count, for any purpose (although DEFERENTIAL votes continue to count even if they resolve to FOR); FOR votes made after a comment stating that a proposal was edited are FOR votes, as normal (unless the proposal is edited again after that FOR vote is made).

Enact the Proposal “Investing in the Ruleset”.

This proposal changes my name from “Josh” to “JeffSheets”.

In Rule 2.2 (Ruleset Theft), replace “create the rule in question as a BlogNomic dynastic rule” with:-

create a copy of the rule in question as a subrule of this rule

...and move any Dynastic Rules which were created as the result of a Theft proposal so that they become subrules of Rule 2.2.

After “rather than being left in its original state);”, add:-

this proposal may also include proposed amendments to other rules, if the stolen rule would contradict or interact unclearly with those rules;

Remove the sentence “Also, no player may edit the NomicWiki page in question while this rule exists; and if any player edited the page in question while this proposal was Pending, that player must not attempt to Steal a Rule.”

Add the following text to last line of rule “Investments”:

An Admin cannot enact a Proposal for which he or she is an investor, unless there are no other non-idle Admins who might be able to enact it.

Change the fee of rule “More Weekly Please” to 50 Points.

On rule “Ruleset Theft” after the text that reads “Theft Proposals submitted according to this rule can be legally submitted even if the submitter already has 2 proposals Pending”, add the following:

(conversely, this also means that if a Player has 2 Proposals pending, and one of them is a Theft Proposal, they can still create 1 additional proposal)

On rule “Rule Changes are Secured (Blue)” replace the sentence that reads “(d) The alteration of a rule’s clearance.” with:

(d) The alteration of that rule’s fee or sponsor.

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

A proposal is Viral if its title contains the text “[Viral]”.  Viral Proposals can only be created by other Proposals or by rules that explicitly state that they create Viral Proposals.

Viral proposals are considered not to have an author, and thus are unaffected by the restrictions on making proposals in Rule 1.3.  Viral proposals are always Trivial.

If the oldest pending Proposal is Viral, the oldest pending proposal that is not Viral may be enacted or failed under Rule 1.5 as if it were the oldest pending Proposal.

In the Rule entitled “Trivial Proposals”, change the text

it contains a statement to that effect, its title contains the text “[Trivial]” or at least half

to

it is a Viral Proposal, it contains a statement to that effect, its title contains the text “[Trivial]” or at least half

Remove any subrules to Teams entitled “Sharing”. Create a subrule to Teams entitled “Sharing”:

If any player is awarded points for any reason other than as a result of this rule, then all that player’s teammates may increase their points by one, once within 48 hours.

If the proposal “[Theft] Civ3 Democracy isn’t quite a Nomic” passes, add the following to “Teams”:

Every player belongs to one of the teams, which are entitled Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. If a player does not belong to a team, any player may assign them a team by rolling DICE7 with a comment of “Team Assignment (player)” replacing “player” with the player’s name. The player is then assigned the team whose name’s position in the team list matches the rolled number. Player’s team assignment is tracked in the GNDT. Players who share a common Team value are teammates; all players from a given team may be referred to collectively as that team (IE. all the players on Team Blue may be collectively referred to as Team Blue).

If at least half of the EVCs on this proposal contain the phrase “Team Blue”, then assign Qwazukee to Team Blue. If at least half of the EVCs on this proposal contain the phrase “Sharing”, then create a subrule of Teams:

If any player gains points for any reason, then all that player’s teammates may increase their points by one, once within 48 hours.

Rule 2.1.4 states that “A proposal is Trivial if it contains a statement to that effect, its title contains the text “[Trivial]” or at least half of the EVCs on that proposal contain the text “Trivial”.”

When arthexis adminned proposal “So… much… work…”, he fined its author as per Rule 2.1.  He explicitly ignored the “Trivial” in a number of EVCs, because they were not surrounded by brackets.  As a result, he mistakenly scored the proposal as non-Trivial even though it was clearly Trivial.

Therefore, increase Yuri_dragon_17’s Score by 2 to reverse the illegal fine.

Create a new rule “Auctions”

An Auction is a special type of story post which has the text “[Auction]” at the beginning of its title. Auctions can only be created as specified by sub-rule “Creating Auctions”. The text of each Auction mus contain the name of a Dynastic rule or sub-rule which is being auctioned, along any other flavor text it’s creator wishes (none of it is binding in any manner).

There are two variables associated with an Auction, “Highest Bid” which is a positive amount of points and “Highest Bidder” which is the name of a Player or “None”. Auctions can be Open or Closed. As long as an Auction is Open, it shall be stickied.

Once an Open Auction has not received any new bids for 24 hours, any Player may Close it by making a comment of “Auction Closed” followed by the current values of Highest Bid and Highest Bidder for that Auction. If the Highest Bidder is not “None”, the Auctioned Rule is now Sponsored by the Highest Bidder (modify the rule to reflect this, as explained by the rule “Sponsored Rules”).

If the Auctioned Rule already had a Sponsor at the time the Auction Closed, the previous Sponsor ceases to be a Sponsor of that rule and is awarded Points equal to the Highest Bid.

Create a new sub-rule to rule “Auctions”, called “Creating Auctions [5 Points]”:

As a weekly action, the Acting Leader may create an Auction, including all the information required by rule “Auctions”. The Highest Bid for that Auction is 1, and the Highest Bidder for that auction is None. The Auction is considered Open upon creation.

Create a new sub-rule to rule “Auctions”, called “Bidding”:

At any time, a Player may bid in an Open Auction, by spending any number of positive Points greater than the Highest Bid of that Auction, and making a comment on that auction containing the text “Bidding X” where X is the number of points spent this way. Then, if no other previous bid is larger than this one, the Highest Bid becomes X (as defined on the previous sentence) and the Player who placed that bid becomes the Highest Bidder.

Whenever a Player ceases to be a Highest Bidder, they are awarded an amount of Points equal to those spent on their last bid.

Create a new rule called “A % of the Pot” with the following text.

All bonuses or penalties to Points, aside from standard scoring methods, shall be based on a percentage of the affected player’s total current Points, rather than a flat increment.

I am currently working on drafting a new, smaller and hopefully more visually pleasing, sidebar, which will be optional for use via an account checkbox. It will probably take a while. Normally I could do it in one long sitting, but I have a lot of work to do. Expect lots of Java and collapseable areas, some re-arrangement, one or two deletions, and a Java function for selecting which pending list you want to see, each being a scroll-down menu. The Links will have the number of proposals/cfjs/dovs by them, and should turn red if one is due for adminning. Open to other suggestions. Just a heads-up.

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

No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

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

There will be seven human-controlled teams involved.

Replace the text:

* It has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and has not been vetoed or self-killed.
* It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.

in Rule 1.5 Enactment with:

* It has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been Pending for at least 12 hours, has not been vetoed or self-killed, and there is no current Hiatus.
* It has been Pending for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, has not been vetoed or self-killed, and there is no current Hiatus.

Enact a new dynastic rule, entitled “Elections”, as follows:

Every 5 rounds the Players elect the game administrator Leader by majority vote. Every Player has as many votes as she has points on the scoreboard in the GNDT . Every Player has the right to nominate another Player, Players cannot nominate themselves. Nomination can be done by a blog post. A nomination of another player will be rewarded by 2 points. Elected new game administrators Leaders can reject their election, in this case the Player with the second most votes will be elected. If no other player has been suggested, the current game administrator Leader continues for another 5 rounds .

(intentionally not a proposal.  Really, this time.)
The idea being that if a Proposal collects “X” number of consecutive “AGAINST” votes and no “FOR” votes at all, then the Proposal may be Failed even if it has not yet timed out nor collected a quorum of votes. 
I am aware that there are good reasons not to clear a proposal out of the queue before its turn simply because the proposal’s author has S/K’ed it.  In this case, though, if a proposal is so bad that no one other than its author supports it and it quickly runs up a lot of negative votes, then why trouble to keep it in the queue.
Perhaps if a Proposal is Failed by this method, then the Proposer’s author is locked out of making any more Proposals (even if he would otherwise have an open proposal slot) for some period- say, 24 hours from the Failing of the Proposal.

Unrelated concept:  In our ruleset, the final action that is taken upon a Proposal is to Enact it, to Fail it, or to Veto it.  But we don’t have a generic term that collectively describes all of these alternatives.  Such a term may be useful. I suggest “Resolved” (i.e., the Proposal is Resolved”, the Admin Resolves it, etc.)

Add “Voting” to the list of actions permitted during hiatus, in the second paragraph of rule 1.9.

Enact a new Dynastic Rule, named “108”:

Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and subsequently reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

Remove the following text from the Glossary (reformatting it if necessary):

If a game action is a Daily Action, each Player able to perform it may take that action once per day, but not more than once every six hours.

Create a new dynastic rule, “First Speaker”:

The Speaker for the first game shall be JeffSheets.

If “Slowing Fine” passed, replace “A player is fined two points each time a proposal times out on which they did not cast a FOR or AGAINST vote (excluding their own proposals).” with:-

A player is fined two points each time a proposal times out on which their vote was counted neither FOR nor AGAINST. (A proposal “times out” if it is failed after being open for voting for at least 48 hours, yet was neither self-killed nor had enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those votes being changed.)

As I was casually perusing this nomic’s fine list of recently registered players, I found myself quite intrigued by the number of new player who all had full, often strange names, each with a startling lack of posts and an email containing some iteration of the word “fitness”. I also noted a common use of the last names “Hudgens”, “Brown”, “Waller”, and “Simmons”. Seeking some other connection between these entities, I examined the IP addresses for each. While not identical, I found each strikingly similar to the others’. As a confirmation of my misgivings, I soon discovered that each’s profile contained an inordinate amount of links to sites completely unrelated to our own. Recalling how our wiki was once used as spam for links to similar sites, I began to realize the improper intentions these entities had. It thus has become my intention to delete all such accounts. Any player with misgivings about this action should post as such in the next 24 hours, else I will proceed in the fashion which I have just alluded to.

EDIT: I believe that I have asertained the weakness in our site which has allowed this spam—The correct code for one image captcha will work for ANY captcha. I have tested this without creating a new account; please do not create a new account by testing this—we do not need the spam.

What do you think about adding Call for Judgment (Member #7) to the author drop down menu once more?

If there aren’t too many objections, I will do so.

Create a new rule “Investments [2 Points]”:

As a daily action, a Player may Invest in a Proposal by making a comment of “Investing” on any of their comments on that Proposal, but at most once per Proposal. If a Player does so, that Player is considered an Investor for that Proposal. A Player cannot Invest on the Proposals he or she authored.

Whenever a Proposal passes, if there are four or less Investors for that Proposal, each Investor is awarded 5 Points.

If Proposal “This proposal has been brought to you by arthexis” passed, add the following line to rule “Investments”:

A Player cannot Invest on a Proposal he or she is Sponsoring.

Create a rule named Bob: Any Google member may become a Player at any time by joining the BlogNomic Blog and by making a post that in some way communicates that he wants to become a Player.

Create a rule named Bob: Any Google member may become a Player at any time by joining the BlogNomic Blog and by making a post that in some way communicates that he wants to become a Player.

Create a rule named Bob: Any Google member may become a Player at any time by joining the BlogNomic Blog and by making a post that in some way communicates that he wants to become a Player.

Add the following to “Accountability”:

Whenever an admin enacts or fails a Call For Judgement, a proposal, or a Declaration of victory, he is awarded 2 points
Whenever an admin adds, idles or unidles any number of players, they are awarded 1 point per player.

This is a trivial proposal.

In the Rule entitled “Accountability”, change the text

Whenever the enaction or failure of a Proposal would fine or award Points to a Player, the Admin who enacted or failed it must list these fines and awards in their Admin comment.

to

Whenever the enaction or failure of a Proposal would fine or award Points to a Player, the Admin who enacted or failed it must list these fines and awards in their Admin comment and process those fines or awards.

Replace all occurrences of “Master” in the Ruleset with “Acting Leader”

Append the following text to the end of the Rule entitled “Leader board”

If there is no Leader, then the Acting Leader is the Leader for the purpose of the Core Rule entitled “Voting”, but not for any other Core Rules.  (The Acting Leader cannot Veto Proposals unless they are also the Leader. )

Create a new sub-rule “Sponsored Proposals [5 Points]” under rule “Fees”.

Players can create a special type of Proposal called a Sponsored Proposal, which contains the text “[Sponsored by NAME]” at the beginning of it’s title, where NAME is the name of any player (known as the Sponsor) with a Score greater or equal to twice the number of Players.

If the Sponsor votes against the Proposal they are Sponsoring, the Proposal is considered failed, cannot be enacted, and the author of that Proposal is fined for 5 points.

If the Proposal passes, the Sponsor is fined for an amount equal to the number of Players that voted FOR the Sponsored Proposal, and each Player that voted FOR the Sponsored Proposal (except the author) is awarded 2 Points.

Create a new sub-rule “Sponsored Rules” under rule “Fees”.

If a Sponsored Proposal would create a dynastic rule, the text “Sponsored by NAME.”, where NAME is the Sponsor of that Proposal, is added at the end of the rule’s text (if other text is added at the end of the rule, move the text created by this rule to the end afterward). Those rules are known as sponsored rules. The player called name is known as the Sponsor for that rule.

If a sponsored Rule (or a sub-rule of the sponsored rule) that has a fee defines an action, whenever that action is taken, the Sponsor of that rule is awarded an amount of points equal to the amount of that fee.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled “Sandbox”, with the text

Sentences in subrules of this rule have no effect if they are incomplete or ungrammatical.  Under no circumstances can a player claim victory due to this rule or its subrules.  This rule overrides any of its subrules, even if they contain text to the contrary.

Create a subrule of “Sandbox” entitled “Sandcastle”

Add a new subrule to 2.1 Points entitled “Adding to the Sandcastle [5 Points]”, with the text

A player may add one word to the end of the rule “Sandbox”, and then optionally add up to one punctuation mark.  Under no circumstances may a player add a word or punctuation mark which creates an ungrammatical sentence or makes it impossible for an incomplete sentence to be completed grammatically.

Add a new subrule to 2.1 Points entitled “Kicking over the Sandcastle [8 Points]” with the text

A player may, if there is an incomplete sentence in the rule “Sandbox”, delete one word from the end of an incomplete sentence in that rule.

Create a new subrule to rule 2.1 (Points), entitled “Buying votes [5 Points]”, with the following text:

At any time, a player may buy an additional vote on a proposal by making a comment with a voting icon and the string [Bought].  This shall count as an additional EVC for that player, except that it shall not count towards quorum for the first bullet point in rule 1.5: that is, a quorum of different players must vote for a proposal for it to be enacted under the first bullet point of rule 1.5.

Enact a new subrule of Rule 2.1 (Points) called “Awards and Fines”, with the following text:-

• A player is awarded ten points each time one of their proposals is enacted.
• A player is fined two points each time one of their proposals fails.
• A player is fined two points each time a proposal times out on which they did not cast a FOR or AGAINST vote (excluding their own proposals).

In Rule 2.1.2 (Accountability), replace “would fine or award Points to a Player” with “would fine or award Points to its Proposer”.

Remove the sentences beginning “A player is awarded” and “A player is fined” from Rule 2.1 (Points).

Add the following to rule 1.9, Victory and Ascension, at the end of the fourth paragraph (beginning The Declaration of Victory may be resolved after 24 hours…):

The Player making the declaration of victory may withdraw it any any time by making a comment to the declaration containing the AGAINST icon and the word “Withdrawn”. Once this withdrawal has been made it cannot be undone; the Declaration of Victory is considered to be immediately failed and may be marked as such by any admin. If there are no other DoVs pending then hiatus ends from the moment that the withdrawal is posted.

Amend the second-to-last paragraph of the same rule to read as follows:

If, when a DoV is failed, it has a number of AGAINST votes that exceed Quorum, no FOR votes at all, or was withdrawn, the Player who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.

Ban Darth Cliche.

Fail all unresolved DoVs made by Darth Cliche and end Hiatus if there are no other unresolved DoVs.

Admins, keep in mind that proposals are not open for voting during Hiatus.  Therefore, proposals “That went down well” through “Pick Your Own Honorary Title, Non-Self-Killed Edition” will not time out until 24 hours after the sidebar says they time out.

I have won per the proposal “LOLOLOLOLOLRODLANCHAOZLOLOLDSJKAHGFJKH”.

In their EVC to this Proposal, Players may include a single text in the form “[TITLE]” where TITLE can be any text. If they do, TITLE (as defined in the previous sentence) is their Title Choice.

If there is a single Title Choice that has appeared in more EVCs than any other Title Choice, select that Title Choice and replace all instances of the text “Master” in rule “Points” and its sub-rules with the text of the selected Title Choice.

From those Players whose Title Choice matched the selected Title Choice, the first three Players that included that Title Choice in their EVC gain 25 Points.

If the Proposal titled “On Transfers and Fees” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Create a new rule called “More weekly please [100 Points]” with the following text.

Once a week, a Player may pay this rules fee to perform the weekly action of any other rule a second time, (for example, steal two rules in one week). Points are awarded or fined as normal

If this proposal passes but does nothing, Darknight is awarded only 4 points.

Create a rule called “Nomic 217” with the following text.

The Motto of Blognomic is this: “Legislating from the bench is the
most efficient way to do it. If something essential would be broken,
it instead isn’t. Spirit trumps letter.” The Motto of Blognomic, like
its rules, has full jurisdiction over the things defined by the rules
of Blognomic.

Add a new dynastic rule:

If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge’s best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

Hi! Can I join?

If any one wants to get free points, propose this:

Create a sub-rule, “Express Self-Kill [3 Points]”:

A Player may “Express Self-Kill” on one of their own Proposals, by making an AGAINST vote on it together with the text, “EXPRESS”.
Any Proposal that has been Express Self-Killed in this manner, may be failed as if it where the last pending proposal (the Admin failing it does not have to pay any fees for doing it).

Create a new rule, “Rule Changes are Secured (Blue)”:

A rule change is any of the following:

(a) The creation of a rule.
(b) The repeal of a rule.
(c) The alteration of a rule’s text.
(d) The alteration of a rule’s clearance.

Rule changes are only possible as explicitly defined by the rules.

Create a new rule, “Core Protection”, ignoring any crossed out text:

ImmutableCore rules cannot be altered or removed, but can be changed into mutableDynastic rules if all current game players agree.

In the course of this whole “is a Vote necessarily a Comment” kerfuffle, I’ve noticed that our core Ruleset only expressly defines the _noun_ “Vote”, but the word “vote” is used in the Ruleset as a noun in some places, and as a verb in others.

All I’m sayin’ is I’m just sayin’.

In Rule 2.1 (Points), replace “gains” with “is awarded” and “loses” with “is fined”.

Reword Rule 2.1.2 (Accountability) to:-

Whenever the enaction or failure of a Proposal would fine or award Points to a Player, the Admin who enacted or failed it must list these fines and awards in their Admin comment.

Within 72 hours of a Player being fined or awarded Points, any Player may process that fine or award in the GNDT (adding Points in the result of an award, removing them in the result of a fine), provided that the adjustment is carried out only once. Points lost to a fine are simply lost, they are not paid to another Player. This rule supersedes every other rule that specifies who can modify a Player’s Score.

If the proposal “Smashing other nomics’ rulesets to pieces” passed, replace “gains” with “is awarded” throughout the rule “Ruleset Theft”.

If the proposal “That went down well” passed, replace “they would gain” with “they would be awarded” in Rule 2.1.

If the proposal “Same issue as Round One” passed, replace “does not gain or lose any Points” with “is not awarded or fined any Points” in the rule “Trivial Proposals”.

To Rule 2.1.1 (Leader board), add:-

A Player with the lowest Score amongst all Players is a Pariah. If two or more players are tied for the lowest Score, they are all Pariahs.

If there is a Master, and if the Master has at least two hundred Points more than a Pariah, then the Master may declare victory.

Bucky has achieved Victory and may post a DoV at any time.

Add a new subrule to the rule entitled “Points”.  Call the subrule “Trivial Proposals” and give it the following text:

A proposal is Trivial if it contains a statement to that effect, its title contains the text “[Trivial]” or at least half of the EVCs on that proposal contain the text “Trivial”.  When a Trivial proposal is adminned, its author does not gain or lose any Points from Rule 2.1 and/or its subrules.

If the word “unanimously” exists in the rule Points, then replace it with “with no votes against”.

Add the following sentence to “Points”:

A player gains three points each time one of their proposals passes unanimously, in addition to any other points they would gain.

Could I be unidled please

Could admins please record the final vote total on proposals.  You have to count them up anyway, and it’s approximately required (or was interpreted as such for a long time), and it’s handy to find out just how much people like or dislike a given proposal.

In their EVC to this Proposal, Players may include a single text in the form “[TITLE]” where TITLE can be any text. If they do, TITLE (as defined in the previous sentence) is their Title Choice.

If there is a single Title Choice that has appeared in more EVCs than any other Title Choice, select that Title Choice and replace all instances of the text “Master” in rule “Points” and its sub-rules with the text of the selected Title Choice.

From those Players whose Title Choice matched the selected Title Choice, the first three Players that included that Title Choice in their EVC gain 25 Points.

Create a rule called “Fees”:

Dynastic Rules may have fees associated with them. The fee for a rule is noted in a label such as “[X Points]” next to the name of that rule, where X is a positive number. The fee is not considered to be part of the name of that rule when the rule is referred to.

Whenever a rule with a fee defines an action, a Player may not perform that action until that Player pays the fee of that rule, by spending X Points (X being the number in the label as explained above) along a GNDT comment containing the name of the rule defining that action.  This fee must be paid for each time the Player attempts to perform the action.

If a sub-rule has a fee, and the rule that contains it has a fee as well, both fees must be paid to perform an action in the sub-rule.

Create a new sub-rule “Transfers [2 Points]” under rule “Points”:

At any time, a Player with 1 or more points may transfer any amount between 1 and 100 of their own points to any other Player of their choice (to perform the transfer, the first Player decreases their score by the transfered amount and then increases the other Player’s Score by the same amount).

Part 1: Add a new section to the Glossary, entitled “Proxy terminology”, as follows:

‘’‘Proxy’‘’ means the authority of the relevant Proxy Holder to cast a Vote on behalf of the Proxy Grantor as permitted by the Ruleset.
‘’‘Proxy Grantor’‘’ means, with respect to a Proxy, the Player who posted the Proxy Declaration that creates the Proxy.
‘’‘Proxy Holder’‘’ means, with respect to a Proxy, the Player who has the authority to exercise the Proxy as permitted by the Ruleset.

Part 2:

Add a new core rule, entitled “Proxies”, as follows:
A Player may create and grant a Proxy by posting a Proxy Declaration, whereupon that Player is the Proxy Grantor with respect to that Proxy.  A Proxy Declaration is accomplished by [posting an entry] in the “Story Post” category that (i) expressly provides that it is a Proxy Declaration, and (ii) expressly identifies the Proxy Holder of the relevant Proxy.  The Proxy Declaration may also provide that it expires at any expressly-stated time that is later than the time that it is posted.

A Proxy Holder may exercise the Proxy to cast a Vote on behalf of the Proxy Grantor by posting a comment (containing a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST or DEFERENTIAL, as applicable) to the relevant Pending Proposal if the comment expressly states that it is a Vote on behalf the Proxy Grantor pursuant to a Proxy.  Such a Vote is deemed, for all purposes, to have been cast by the Proxy Grantor and not by the Proxy Holder at the time that such comment is posted.  A Vote may not be cast by Proxy on a Call for Judgment or on a Declaration of Victory.

A Proxy remains in effect until the earliest of: (i) its express cancellation by means of either the Proxy Grantor or the relevant Proxy Holder [posting an entry] in the Story Post” Category stating that it cancels the Proxy; (ii) the expiration time stated in the relevant Proxy Declaration, if any; or (iii) the enactment of a Declaration of Victory.  However, if a Vote cast by Proxy is validly cast at the time it is cast on a particular Pending Proposal, then the occurrence of an event specified in clauses (i) or (ii) of the previous sentence does not, in and of itself, invalidate that Vote if an event specified in clauses (i) or (ii) of the previous sentence occur between the time that such Vote is cast and the time that the relevant Proposal is enacted or failed.

Part 3: If the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords” is not “player”, replace all instances of “Player” in this Proposal with the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords”.

I’m back my friends, I unidle.

Replace all instances of “Survivor” in the Ruleset with “Player”.

Replace each character in the ruleset with the string “A Suffusion of Yellow”.

The idea being that a particular Player (the Proxy Grantor) may post a blog post (the Proxy Declaration) stating that a different, specified named Player (the Proxy Holder) holds the Proxy Grantor’s Proxy (defined below).  The Proxy Declaration may, but is not required to, specify the duration of the Proxy (however any unexpired Proxy automatically terminates upon the enactment of a Declaration of Victory).  The Proxy remains in effect until the duration (if any) specified in the Proxy Declaration terminates, it automatically terminates, it is expressly terminated by the Proxy Grantor by a blog post, or it is expressly terminated by the Proxy Holder by a blog post.

During the duration of the Proxy, the Proxy Holder may, with respect to any Proposal, cast a vote on such proposal by posting a comment (containing a vote) to the Proposal that expressly names the Proxy Grantor and expressly states that it constitutes an exercise of the Proxy on behalf of the Proxy Grantor.  Such a vote is deemed, for all purposes, as constituting a vote cast by Proxy Grantor and not by Proxy Holder on that Proposal (i.e., an AGAINST vote by Proxy can self-kill a Proposal by the Proxy Grantor; a VETO may be cast by Proxy if the Proxy Grantor is the Emperor (or equivalent), any gamestate effect that inures to the benefit or detriment of a particular voter on a Proposal on account of a particular vote will inure to the benefit or detriment of the Proxy Grantor rather than the Proxy Holder if that vote constituted an exercise of the Proxy, a Proxy vote on a given proposal before the Proposal is Enacted or Failed can be overridden by a contrary vote on that proposal by the Proxy Grantor in his own right, etc.)

A Proxy may not be validly used to vote on a CFJ or a DOV.

No reason why a given Proxy Grantor can’t grant a Proxy to more than one other Player concurrently.

Create a new dynastic rule, “Ruleset Theft”:

As a weekly action, a player may attempt to Steal a Rule. To do so, that player must follow the following steps in order:

• Roll “Stealing a Rule: DICEX” in the GNDT, where X is the number of active nomics listed at (note that DatabaseTemplate is not a nomic; it is illegal to make more than one of these rolls in a week);
• Find the ruleset, or entity corresponding to a ruleset, of the nomic whose position in that list is equal to the number rolled in the GNDT in the first step (the attempt to Steal a Rule fails if it cannot be found, or if the nomic in question has no analogue to a ruleset);
• Pick a random rule, or entity corresponding to a rule, from that nomic (using the GNDT to randomize which rule to pick in a suitable manner; if the rules of the nomic in question are customarily arranged in some order, then rolling DICEX where X is the number of rules in that nomic, then picking the Nth rule where N is the result of the dice roll, is the recommended method);
• Submit a proposal with “[Theft]” (a Theft Proposal) in its title which would create the rule in question as a BlogNomic dynastic rule, except that any number of proper nouns in the rule in question may be changed from terms in the nomic in question to equivalent terms in BlogNomic (for example, if a rule that was stolen this way had the name of the nomic it was stolen from in it, that name should be changed to “BlogNomic” rather than being left in its original state);
• If the proposal in question is passed, then the attempt to Steal a Rule succeeds; if it is failed, it fails.

As an exception to the Core Rules, Theft Proposals submitted according to this rule can be legally submitted even if the submitter already has 2 proposals Pending, or has already submitted 3 proposals that day. Also, no player may edit the NomicWiki page in question while this rule exists; and if any player edited the page in question while this proposal was Pending, that player must not attempt to Steal a Rule. It is not necessary, although still considered good style, to mention the source of the rule created by a Theft Proposal in the Theft Proposal’s commentary.

When an attempt to Steal a Rule succeeds, the player who made the attempt gains an additional 5 points, each player who voted FOR the corresponding Theft Proposal gains 2 points, and the administrator who administrated the Theft Proposal gains 2 points.

Could somebody idle me. Thanks.

If the rule “Points” exists, replace “two points each time one of their proposals fails by gaining a number of votes AGAINST equal to or greater than quorum, rather than timing out” with:-

two points each time one of their proposals fails

I unidle myself. Quorum remains nine.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Careful, Careful” with the following text:

No proposal that alters a Core Rule may pass with less than 2/3 of all player’s votes for the proposal.  If, at any time, such a proposal has received sufficent votes against or abstaining to make this impossible, and is the oldest pending proposal, it may be failed by any admin.

If there are no points, this proposal does nothing. 

Else, add a Dynastic rule to the ruleset, entitled “Somewhere to spend your points”, with the text:

At any time, a player may spend five points to add a word to the end of this rule’s subrule “Work in progress”, and may then add one punctuation mark after said word.  Any addition to the rule must not form an ungrammatical sentence, nor make it impossible for a grammatical sentence to be formed.  Any incomplete or ungrammatical sentences in the rule “Work in progress” have no effect, and any player may at any time delete the last word of an incomplete sentence in “Work in progress” for eight points.  Under no circumstances may “Work in progress” contain the name of any player, nor may any player achieve victory based upon text in “Work in progress”

As a subrule of “Somewhere to spend your points”, create a rule entitled “Work in progress”.

Hi again!  I’ve been keeping an eye on BlogNomic over the last couple of months.  I’ve settled down a bit at uni now, so I should have time to play again.

Please unidle me!

I will de-idle myself now. Maybe I’ll last more than a week this time!

Create a new rule called “Achievements”:

There exist a wiki document called “Player Records” which contains an history account of all Completed Achievements, and serves no other purpose. It may not be modified in any manner other than defined in the Dynastic Rules, or through a Call of Judgement.

The sub-rule to this rule called “Catalogue”, which contains a list of non-rules text. Each item on that list is known as an Achievement and contain a name and a condition which can be either True or False for a Player. Whenever an Achievement becomes true for a Player, that a Achievement is said to have been Completed (by that Player) and cannot be Completed again by that Player. Achievements are never retroactive: they can’t be completed due to circumstances that occurred prior to the Achievement being added to the “Catalogue” sub-rule.

Whenever an Achievement is completed, the Player who completed it shall add a line at the beginning of the “Player Records” containing his or her name, the name of the Completed Achievement and the current date (as it appears on the Blognomic front page).

Create a new sub-rule “Catalogue” to rule “Achievements”:

* The Player has created a Proposal that passed with no votes AGAINST.
* The Player has created a Proposal that passed and used all the letters in the English alphabet.
* The Player has voted on 20 Proposals or more.
* The Player has created at least three Proposals that passed.

If proposal “Back to the Basics again” failed, this proposal does nothing.

Add a sub-rule called “Leader board” under rule “Points”:

The Player with the highest Score amongst all Players is the Master. If two or more players are tied for the highest Score, no Player is the Master.

Add a sub-rule called “Accountability” under rule “Points”:

Whenever a Proposal is enacted or failed, if such an action would cause any player’s Score to be modified, the Admin who enacted it or failed it must explain on their Admin comment for that proposal all the appropriate Score modifications that are to take place due to that action.

Whenever a rule indicates that a Player’s Score is modified, any Player may carry out the adjustment in the GNDT, provided the adjustment is carried out only once. This rule supersedes every other rule that specifies who can modify a Player’s Score.

Okay, what about making the whole theme about points? I like Bucky’s propoposal on its simplicity, but completely dislike the Merits concept. Why? It’s the same thing as Groundhog dynasty, and that one went really great, right? So why don’t we center ourselves against a simple resource like Points and try to relate points gaining to rule-affecting actions? I propose this guidelines:

* Points are the only single resource EVER.
* No longwinded statekeeping. All the last dynasties had tons of stuff to track that no one cared about.
* No external documents, maps, inventory listings or shops. They haven’t really gotten any use in the last 5 dynasties or so.
* Award points to things related to making and passing proposals, for example, betting on proposals, taxing the proposals or other players, giving additional points for passing tricky proposals, etc.
* We DO need some sort of benefit for admins. Sometimes proposals are very complicated to enact and pose no reward for the person that has to carry them out.
* No grinding actions of any sort. If an action does not promote social gameplay it doesn’t award any points

We have a chance to make a simple and fun dynasty this time, rather than boring chores, please consider it.

Add a new rule, “Victory Conditions”:

A player can achieve victory if they meet at least 2/3 of all Victory Conditions simultaneously, and there are at least 3 such conditions.
Victory Conditions: **Here go victory conditions eg. reach milestone X, make at least 5 changes to core rules, have never lost any points, etc.  idk, this is a protosal**

I request to be unidled.

Create a new rule, “Protection”:

For the Purposes of altering the Core Rules, Quorum is treated as 2/3*X where X is the number of active players (rounding to the nearest whole value), instead of its usual definition.

If points are defined by the ruleset, then add a new rule, “Milestones”:

If players reach any of the below scores, then they have reached the corresponding milestone:
1 - First Point
10 - I’m a Big Boy
25 - Bubblegum
50 - Rareish Coin
100 - I’m Old
123 -  I Beat Jeanne Calment
256 - To the Eighth
747 - Big Plane
1000 - I’m Rich
9001 - What 9000?

Create a new rule, “Protection”:

For the Purposes of altering the Core Rules, Quorum is treated as 2/3*X where X is the number of active players (rounding to the nearest whole value), instead of its usual definition.

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

Each player has a statistic tracked in the GNDT under the column ‘Points’.  This number may also be referred to as that player’s Score.

All players start with zero points. Scores may be either positive or negative.

A player gains ten points each time one of their proposals is enacted.

A player loses two points each time one of their proposals fails by gaining a number of votes AGAINST equal to or greater than quorum, rather than timing out.

If the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords” is not “player”, replace all instances of “player” in the new rule with the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords”.

Part 1:
Replace “Survivor” with “Player” wherever it appears in the Ruleset. Replace “Leader” with “Emperor” wherever it appears in the Ruleset.

Part 2:
Add a new metadynastic rule entitled “Offices” as follows:
The following offices exist, each of which may be held by no more than one Player:
Count Palatine
Bosun’s Mate
Pontifex Maximus
Deputy Assistant Editor
Tsar of All the Russias
Key Grip
Goalkeeper
Lion of Judah

Part 3:
Add a metadynastic rule called “Chessboard” as follows:
The Chessboard consists of an 8x8 array of squares, with ranks designated by numbers 1 through 8 from bottom to top, and files designated by letters a through h from left to right; thus the bottom left square on the Chessboard may be designated as a1.

Par

La la la, no proposal here, no sitter

Add a new rule titled “Nommic or Nohmic?”:

Each player has a variable called Vowel, which is tracked in the GNDT and can be either o or O. As a weekly action, a player may change their Vowel from o to O or vice versa. All players’ Vowels are initially O.

If the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords” is not “player”, replace all instances of “player” in the new rule with the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords”.

Fail all Pending Proposals and Pending CfJs made on or prior to 07 Oct 2009 20:37:08.

Fail all Pending Proposals and Pending CfJs made on or prior to 07 Oct 2009 19:08:01.

Fail all Proposals and CFJs made on or prior to 07 Oct 2009 19:08:01.

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

Each player has a statistic tracked in the GNDT under the column ‘Points’.  This number may also be referred to as that player’s Score.

All players start with zero points. Scores may be either positive or negative.

A player gains ten points each time one of their proposals is enacted.

A player loses two points each time one of their proposals fails by gaining a number of votes AGAINST equal to or greater than quorum, rather than timing out.

An admin gains one point each time he or she enacts a proposal.

If the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords” is not “player”, replace all instances of “player” in the new rule with the last entry in the Rule entitled “Keywords”.

This is the Fifth Metadynasty. I’m just posting an ascension address so that automated things that depend on them realise that we’re in a new dynasty; I haven’t actually won.

This post only exists so that people watching the Ascension Alert feed can tell that a metadynasty has begun.

Discuss ideas here.

Replace all instances of Survivor in the ruleset with Player, and all instances of Leader with Emperor.

Create a new dynastic rule, “Core Rule Protection”:

For the purpose of counting votes on proposals to change the core rules, a vote FOR a proposal that would change a core rule only counts as two-thirds of a vote FOR.

Veto all pending proposals that were proposed before this CFJ was created.

ais523 achieves victory.

Apathetic Lizardman idles, quorum returns to 7.

unidle me please.

Create a new subrule, “Modesty” to rule 2.10 Contribution:

Any Survivor with a positive Contribution can reduce their own Contribution by any amount from 0 to that value, and increase another Survivor’s Contribution by the same amount.
Any Survivor with a negative Contribution can increase (i.e. make less negative) their own Contribution by any amount from 0 to minus that value, and add that (negative) amount to any other Survivor’s contribution.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposal contain the phrase “Level the playing field”, for each survivor with more than 45 Contribution, reduce that player’s Contribution by 9 for each 10 points by which it exceeds 45.

There were these people who made this magical fairy invention called IRC. It enabled people to be able to talk to each other online without resorting to use of comments. It was very cool. FORSOMEREASON People don’t use it much anymore. In fact, only 3 people regularly use #nomic on slashnet. They are amazing. To be amazing, all you must do is talk occasionally in this channel. The end.

I’m changing the font to Georgia. That’s how it was in dynasties predating arth’s.

Add a new core rule, titled “Everyone hates arthexis”:

The Survivor named arthexis may never achieved victory. For the purposes of the rules, arthexis has never been the Leader (or Leader equivalent) of any Dynasty.

It doesn’t exist. Is there a reason, or am I just missing something?

While the living are running from the Infected, Darth opens the door to a building. Everyone runs in, and they find themselves in the busy streets of New York City, with people everywhere.

Darth: Oh… crap… it was that door…

{Cameraman walks in, everyone gets in the Cessna 500, and the Cessna flies off into the sunset}

Thanks for playing! See you next dynasty!

Reduce the Food and Water and yuri_dragon_17’s Contribution by 86 each.  If any Survivor has increased Food and Water by any amount since this proposal’s creation, by means of a rule that has been repealed in the meantime, reduce both the Food and Water and that Survivor’s Contribution by that amount.

If a Quorum of EVCs on this Proposal, including ais523’s, also contain the text “Clemency”, set ais523’s Status to “Healthy” and his Contribution to 0.

Yoda achieves victory.

Our multiple “Pending CfJ” issue is still here. . . .

The scrappy, undercover Cultist who evaded detection and lured ais and Yuri into a trap of their own devising has win and may declare victory.

Repeal all Dynastic Rules. Start a new Dynasty with no Leader. This Dynasty is named “The Fifth Metadynasty.”

The Survivor, other than the Leader, that appears the most times on the Watching of other Survivors has achieved victory.

ais523, Josh, and Darknight are Cultists. If any other Survivor was a Cultist prior to the creation of this CfJ, they cease to be a Cultist. If any of these Survivors was not a Cultist prior to the creation of this CfJ, they become a Cultist.

Notwithstanding rules that would prevent players winning or DoVing, yuri_dragon_17 has achieved victory and can make a DoV saying so even if the time limit isn’t up.

When making my last Investigation Results post, I didn’t see this paragraph:

If there are more Misinformation results than genuine results, the Leader must randomly select Misinformation results, and discard them. He must also do this if there are the same number of each type of result, unless there are only 1 of each (I.E. The results post must have less misinformation than fact, unless there is only one of each). If a Survivor was genuinely investigated, then the Leader must not post any Misinformation about that survivor for the week they were investigated.

Darknight is not a Cultist. He only seemed like one due to ais523’s Misinformation.

All cultists (ais523 and Darknight) are Infected or Fallen. The food is over 100. I am the survivor with the highest contribution. I achieve victory.

Repeal the Dynastic Rule entitled “Hunting” if one exists.

In “The Infected,” change the text:

As a daily action, an Infected Survivor (the Unclean) who has not taken damage in the previous 72 hours, and with at least 10 Stamina, may attempt to change the status of a Fallen Survivor (the Weak) to Infected by making two Fitness Tests; the attempt succeeds if both pass. Doing so causes the Unclean to gain 5 Fitness and lose 5 Contribution, and the Weak to lose 5 Stamina.

to:

As a daily action, an Infected Survivor (the Unclean) who has not taken damage in the previous 48 hours, and with at least 5 Stamina, may attempt to change the status of a Fallen Survivor (the Weak) to Infected by making a Fitness Tests; the attempt succeeds if it passes. Doing so causes the Unclean to gain 3 Fitness and lose 3 Contribution, and the Weak to lose 3 Stamina.

Add the following sub-rule to rule 2.18, Los Angeles Metro, under the subheading Fortifications.

Each Survivor has a statistic, tracked in the GNDT, called Fortification. This figure must be an integer between -10 and 20. The Fortification of each station on the map is defined as the sum of the Fortifications of all Survivors at that location.

A Survivor may, as a daily action, undertake a Fitness test to add or subtract the result of a DICE5 roll from their Fortification score. There is no Stamina penalty for passing this test.

Add the following to rule 2.18.1, Movement;

In order to enter a station, the Survivor must pass a Fitness check, with the Fortification score for that location added to their roll. If they succeed then they must set their Fortification score to -5. Whenever a Survivor leaves a station, they must reset their Fortification to zero.

Amend the text of rule 2.2.1, Foraging, as follows:

As a weekly action, a Survivor may Forage. To Forage, a Survivor makes a comment of “Foraging: DICE8” in the GNDT and increases the Food and Water by the result of that DICE roll. A Survivor must make and Pass a Fitness test, with the value of their Location’s Fortification added to the roll, to successfully Forage.

Add the following as a sub-rule to rule 2.5, Marauders, entitled Suicide Attack:

As a daily action, the Leader may elect to sacrifice any number of Marauders in an attempt to bring down the barricades in a single location. For each non-Boss Marauder sacrificed in this way, the Leader may remove 5 fortification points from a single chosen location, evenly dispersed among the fortification scores of every Survivor in that location. For each Boss thus sacrificed, the Leader may remove x*2 fortification points, where x is the number of HP that Boss has remaining. No Survivor may have their Fortification score decreased to a negative number via this method.

Add the following as a sub-rule to rule 2.2, entitled Farming:

Survivors may elect to farm. They may become a Farmer by adding “Farm” to their Inventory record in ther GNDT. Each day that they are farming, as a daily action, they may add 1 to their Stamina and 1 to the Food and Water. While farming, a Survivor may not forrage or attack marauders, and the fitness roll to change their Fortification score is taken at a -20 penalty. A Survivor may cease to be a farmer at any time by removing the farm from their inventory. They cannot then start a new farm until one week has passed.

If the fortification of a location is ever 0 or lower then every farm in that location is immediately attacked; every Farmer in that location takes damage and loses DICE5 Stamina.

And finally, add the following to glossary rule 3.4, Dice:

Unless otherwise stated, all dice rolls must be accompanied by the rule number of the rule under which the dice roll is being undertaken.

Add the following sentence to 2.1.2 Healing.

As a weekly action any Resting survivor may increase their stamina by 5.

This Proposal is considered to be Spam.

Create a new rule, “Stitch Doctor”:

As a weekly action, a Healthy Survivor can attempt to heal another Survivor that is Fallen. To do so, the Healthy Survivor makes a Fitness test and reduces the Food and Water by DICE10. If the test is passed, the Fallen Survivor’s status is set to Wounded.

Darknight: Cultist

Remove yuri_dragon_17 from his post as an Admin.

I can’t see the page linked from the ruleset; it crashes the browser in the public access terminal here (Firefox 3 under Vista); IE under Vista doesn’t display it either (it just goes back to the previous page immediately).

yuri incorrectly adminned “movin’ back to Cali”. It was passing, but he failed it. However, I do not have the time to admin it properly right now. . . .

Repeal rule 2.16 “Giving Up”.

I idle, then unidle. Then I repeat the process 22 more times. Just thought you should know.

Increase the rage of all Survivors that voted on this Proposal by 20.
The Status of the Survivor named “ais523” is set to “Infected”.

Create a new rule, “Cetaceans are pretty smart”:

There is an Infected Survivor known as the Cadaverous King that can command other Infected Survivors to follow his or her will. As a daily action, the Cadaverous King can change the Watching of another Infected Survivor to any other valid value. Whenever an Infected Survivor other than the Cadaverous King votes DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, if the Cadaverous King voted on that Proposal, the votes of those Survivors are instead counted as being of the same type as the vote made by the Cadaverous King.

Unless an Infected Survivor has voted AGAINST this Proposal, the author of this proposal is the Cadaverous King.

In the subrule “The Infected”, replace

As a weekly action, an Infected Survivor may change the status of a Fallen Survivor to Infected.

with

As a daily action, an Infected Survivor (the Unclean) who has not taken damage in the previous 72 hours, and with at least 10 Stamina, may attempt to change the status of a Fallen Survivor (the Weak) to Infected by making two Fitness Tests; the attempt succeeds if both pass. Doing so causes the Unclean to gain 5 Fitness and lose 5 Contribution, and the Weak to lose 5 Stamina.

In the Rule “The Infected,” change the word “weekly” to “daily.”

Repeal all subrules to rule 2.5 “Marauders”, and amend the text of that rule to read as follows:

A Marauder is an entity that can be created by the Leader, and which has the following stats:

• HP, which is an integer (1 if not stated); negative HPs are legal but have the same effect as 0 HP does
• 1 or more Jobs.

As a daily action, a non-Fallen Survivor may Fight one Marauder. By default, this causes the Marauder to lose 1 HP; but this may be modified by the Marauder’s Jobs. If a Marauder ever has 0 or fewer HP, it ceases to exist.

An active Marauding exists while at least one Marauder exists. The Leader can create a Marauder at any time; this creates a new active Marauding if there is not currently an active one, or adds Marauders to an existing active Marauding. When creating a Marauding, the Leader must detail the Marauders in it in a Story Post with [MARAUDERS] in its title; new Marauders added to an existing Marauding must be detailed in comments to its associated Story Post, and the comments to that post should also be used by Survivors to track the current HP and existence of Maruaders. If all Marauders in a Marauding cease to exist, it becomes inactive and no longer has an effect on the game.

Add a subrule to that rule, “Marauder Jobs”:

The following Jobs exist:

Thief

Each day when a Marauding is active, the Leader shall decrease the Food and Water by 2 times the number of Marauders with this Job.

Drainer

Each day when a Marauding is active, the Leader shall decrease the Stamina of each Survivor by the number of Marauders with this Job.

Fighter

Whenever a Survivor Fights a Marauder with this Job, that Survivor must take a Fitness Test. If it fails, the Survivor suffers damage.

Ghoul

Whenever a Survivor Fights a Marauder with this Job, that Survivor may not take daily or weekly actions defined in dynastic rules for 48 hours afterwards, no matter what else happens in the Fight.

Medic

Whenever a Marauder with this Job loses HP as a result of a Fight, the Survivor who Fought it gains 1 Stamina. Each day, each Marauder with this Job gains 1 HP, unless this would give it more HP than it had when it was created.

Boss

Whenever a Survivor Fights a Marauder with this Job, that Survivor must make a Fitness Test (a separate and independent one from the test for Fighting a Fighter). If it fails, the Boss loses 1 HP less than it otherwise would from that particular Fight (this may reduce the HP loss to 0; but even in that case, any other effects of the Fight still happen).

Change every Boss that existed before this proposal passed into a Fighter Thief Boss with the same amount of HP remaining. All other Marauders have their HP set to 1.