BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

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

Each Blognomicker has a GNDT column labelled “Inventory” that is a set of items and titles from elsewhere in the ruleset.  A Blognomicker’s Inventory is initially empty.  If a Blognomicker has more than one of an item, their Inventory also tracks how many of that item they have (this does not apply to titles).
At certain times, a Blognomicker may come into possession of some item or gain some title that the Ruleset does not explicitly provide any means of tracking.  Whenever this happens, that item or title is tracked through their Inventory.

Within 48 hours of this proposal’s enactment, any Blognomicker may update another Blognomicker’s (or their own) Inventory to contain any untracked titles and/or items the latter Blognomicker posesses.

One of the reasons why it might appear from a casual glance that the dynasty isn’t moving forward quickly is that we have a lot of untracked gamestate.  I would request an admin to add a free text GNDT column so that the GNDT can track things like possession of items and the identity of players who hold a particular status.

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

Each Blognomicker has some number of Credits, tracked in the GNDT in the “Credit” column.  A new Blognomicker has Credits equal to the mean Credit of all other Blognomickers, rounded down.

Whenever a proposal is enacted, its author gains 1 Credit.
Whenever a Blognomicker becomes a Cheese due to a Match, that Blognomicker gains 2 Credits.

A Blognomicker with at least 2 Credits may spend 2 Credits to change their Culture to any legal value except “Nearly headless”

Set all Blognomickers’ Credit to 0.

Repeal all dynastic rules.  With each EVC on this proposal, a name of one active Blognomicker may be given.  Whichever player is mentioned in the most EVCs achieves victory.

Add a new subrule to the rule called “Food”.  Call it “Storage” and give it the following text:

Each Blognomicker has some edible materiel (known as Food) in their posession, tracked in the GNDT under the “Fridge” column.  Valid types of Food include, but are not limited to Steaks, Cheeses, Chocolate Cakes and Salads.  Whenever a Blognomicker gains Food, it is added to their Fridge automatically.  A Blognomicker cannot have more than 14 items in their Fridge; any extra food that would be added to their Fridge instead {spoils}.

Upon the enactment of this Proposal (so long as at least eight unique Blognomickers cast Votes on this Proposal), the gamestate is updated such that the following Blognomickers each acquire and possess a Typewriter:
* The second Blognomicker to post an EVC to this Proposal;
* The fifth Blognomicker to post an EVC to this Proposal (and that fifth Blognomicker also achieves the status of HAL); and
* The seventh Blognomicker to post an EVC to this Proposal.
Also, what the hell… add the following text to the rule “Stacking”: “The value of the stack may be changed by proposal”, then add the following items to the Stack in the following order:
* A Typewriter
* A Prosthetic Forehead
* Shoes
* A Typewriter
* A Stone

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

If Progress contains exactly one Blognomicker, and that Blognomicker becomes a Criminal without Cheating, then that Blognomicker becomes Robin Hood for the duration of the dynasty.  If a Robin Hood ever ceases to be a Criminal, he achieves victory.

As a weekly action, the {President of the Galaxy} may make a Nomination Post.  Other Blognomickers cannot make Nomination Posts.  A Nomination Post is a post that explicitly declares itself as such and contains the phrase “I Nominate X” where X is the name of another Blognomicker (the Nominated).  If the comments on a Nomination Post contain a FOR voting icon posted by at least one member of each Culture, one by the King of England and one by a member of Congress, the Nominated of that post achieves victory.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Salve Rex” as follows: “At any time, the King of England may declare victory.”

Part 1: If three or more EVCs on this proposal contain one of the terms listed in Part 2 of this proposal, remove that word from the list before this proposal is enacted.

Part 2: The following terms are considered defined and should no longer have {curly braces} around them in the ruleset, therefore, remove the {curly braces} from around the folowing terms whereever they appear in the ruleset:
{Match} {Sicilian} {Asian} {Austrailian} {Mostly Harmless} {Congress} {Law} {Bette Nesmith Graham} {son} {Criminal} {Dave}

I enacted all the proposals (some of which had been FIVE DAYS OLD) and idled muiro, keecz, SeerPenguin, Bluecloud, and ais523. Quorum drops to 11.

The proposal “More Popping and Pushing” is listed as having passed, however, the Ruleset wiki page doesn’t show the changes that this proposal enacted.
I believe this is something that needs to be fixed by an admin, unless I am missing something that made that proposal not affect the rules somehow?

If the Proposal “Argument: “Congress is the Opposite of Progress”” passes than add the following text to “The Talmud”

Congress is the opposite of Progress. Therefore Progress is the subset of all Blognomickers who are not in Congress.

If the Proposal “Argument: “Congress is the Opposite of Progress”” does not pass this proposal does nothing.

Hi there, my name is ScrumHalf and I would like to join the current dynasty of BlogNomic.

Could someone idle me, please?

Add a Dynastic rule entitled: “Are you ready to rock?” with text as follows:

At any time, the {Son of Man} may designate any one or more Blognomickers as Peter by posting a blog post to that effect, provided that Dave, HAL, the King of England and Bette Nesmith Graham are each ineligible to be or become Peter.  The first Blognomicker to be designated as Peter shall be the Pope.  Peter is a Stone.  The {Son of Man} is also the {Almighty Barbecuer}.  A Stone is a Rolling Stone if the Stone has changed location more than twice since the beginning of the dynasty.  The Rolling Stones are all a bunch of Criminals.  The Son of Man may at any time provide Service to any one or more eligible Blognomickers; this act consists of giving the Blognomickers {Loaves and Fish}, which are Delicious but not Meaty.

According to Rule 2.14:

The {pen} is {mightier} than the {sword}.

Also according to Rule 2.14:

Anyone possessing a Sword may, as a weekly action, change the Culture of any Blognomicker to “Nearly headless”.

Therefore, by Rule 2.11:
1 - Add “Headless” to the list of possible Cultures in rule 2.4
2 - Create a sub-rule to rule 2.12 entitled “Fighting Scribes” with the text:

Anyone possessing a Pen, may, as a weekly action, change the Culture of any Blognomicker to “Headless”.

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

Criminals are Blognomickers known to be dangerous.  If a Criminal would ever be Harmless or Mostly Harmless, that Criminal immediately becomes Mostly Harmful.  Blognomickers are not Criminals until a Rule indicates that they are.

If a Blognomicker is ever Harmful, they become a Criminal.
Cheating is the act of rolling DICE with one side or less.  Any Blognomicker who Cheats becomes Mostly Harmful and a {Criminal}.
A Blognomicker may be declared a Criminal by CfJ.  A CfJ that would make a Blognomicker a Criminal is called a Trial.

A Blognomicker may cease to be a Criminal as a result of a {petition} action; if this occurs, that Blognomicker becomes Mostly Harmless.

Create a new Dynastic Rule entitled “Location, Location, Location” with the text:

Location is a quality. It’s potential values are Florin, Guilder, Sicily, Asia, Australia, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and MIA. It’s default value is dependent on the Culture of the Blognomicker whose Location is being determined, as specified in the following table, which is the Culture-Location Table:
Sicilian -> Sicily
Florinese -> Florin
Guilderian -> Guilder
Asian -> Asia
Australian -> Australia
If it is ever necessary to determine the default value of Location for a Blognomicker who has no Culture, or whose Culture is not on the Culture-Location Table, then their Location defaults to MIA.

If, at any time, a Blognomicker’s Culture is changed to one of the Culture values in the Culture-Location Table, then their Location is changed to the corresponding Location value.

Any phrase that is used in English to signify a change in location, such as “go to”, “come from”, etc. shall be interpreted to signify a change in the Location quality.

This is more of a question than anything else.
Rule 2.13.1 defines a law as

A Law is a Dynastic Rule proposed to be added to the Ruleset by the Blognomicker in question.

Yet from the context I cannot figure out who the Blognomicker in question is. Am I missing something or is the rule missing something.

Since rule 2.13.1 defines progress as the opposite of congress. Therefore Progress is the subset of Blognomickers who are not a part of Congress.

If the proposal entitled ‘The Stack’ is enacted, make the following modification to the rule entitled ‘Stacking’:

Change

...except as specified in this rule.

to

...except as specified in the Ruleset.

Part 1:
Create a wiki page entitled “Stack”. This page is created containing only an empty list.

Part 2: Create a Dynastic Rule entitled “Stacking” with the text:

The wiki page entitled Stack must always contain a list of items, known as the stack. No methods of changing the value of the stack are permitted except as specified in this rule.

As a daily action, any Blognomicker may cease to possess one item which is currently in their possession. This item is immediately added to the top of the stack. This action is known as a push.
Whenever a Proposal is enacted, if the stack is not empty, the top item is removed from it. This item immediately enters the possession of the author of the Proposal, unless it is impermissible for it to do so, in which case, the item is destroyed. This is known as a pop.

Hi! I would like to join. My username is lilomar.

Less than two weeks ago, Kevan changed the blog’s registration procedure to include a question about blognomic’s past in order to stop the masses of spam accounts that were being created. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have stopped them. I can only assume some human spammer found the answer to the question, because new spam accounts started appearing within a week. I count only four now since that point, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually started cranking out 6 accounts a day like before.

I’ve no idea how to stop them, but I just thought I’d report this before the number of accounts explodes again.

It might be a good time to introduce another GNDT column, called “Notes” or something like that, to track gamestate information such as the status of who is “Dave”, or “HAL”, or “a monkey” or “delicious” and so forth.  Rather than a whole bunch of separate GNDT columns with binary options, I would think that a single column that can contain free text would suffice.

Part 1:
Amend the rule “Vizzini’s Victory” to add “Nearly headless” to the list of Cultures in that rule.

Part 2: Add the following to the end of the rule: “A chain of non-sequiturs”:

Anyone possessing a Sword may, as a weekly action, change the Culture of any Blognomicker to “Nearly headless”.

Part 3: Add the following to the end of the rule: “Heart of Gold”

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe has a menu that includes Chocolate Cake, and a gift shop that makes Shirts available.  Consequently, any Blognomicker (other than a Criminal) who visits the Restaurant at the End of the Universe may acquire and possess Chocolate Cake, a Shirt, or both.

Part 4: Add a new Dynastic rule entitled “Shakespeare’s Works”, as follows:

“Shakespeare” is any Proposal that is posted by a Blognomicker who is expressly permitted to post it and the text of which is in the poetic meter of iambic pentameter.  The neat thing about Shakespeare is that, when Resolving it, any AGAINST vote that is cast by a Sicilian or Asian Blognomicker who fails to possess a {prosthetic forehead} is to be disregarded.

If the proposal entitled “Match Proposal” (proposed on May 17) is not passed, make the following modification in rule 2.3.:

Change

...unless that Proposal would supply a sufficient definition or explanation so as to cause at least one Hook then in the Ruleset to cease to be a Hook.

to

...unless that Proposal would supply a sufficient definition or explanation so as to cause the total number of Hooks in the Ruleset to decrease upon passage of the Proposal.

Add the following rule, entitled “Enough is enough”:

Other rules notwithstanding, no new hooks may be created.

Part 1:
Add a dynastic rule entitled “It is your destiny”, with text as follows:

Following the adoption of this Proposal, the Victorious Blognomicker may designate a single, non-Asian, non-Australian Blognomicker as Bette Nesmith Graham, by posting a blog post identifying the Blognomicker so designated.  The Victorious Blognomicker may simply identify the identity of the Blognomicker to attain that status, or may award it based on the Blognomicker in question having accomplished some kind of task, or in such other manner as the Victorious Blognomicker deems appropriate in his sole discretion.  Once the Bette Nesmith Graham has been so designated, the Bette Nesmith Graham may designate any one or more Blognomickers (other than himself) as his son.

Part 2: The fifth unique Blognomicker to post a comment to this post is designated as Dave, shall have his culture changed to Australian, and possesses a pen.

I’ve just unidled and reidled, in order to process a couple of new player requests, one of which had been sitting there patiently for two days. Given that proposals have been timing out at three or four days recently, it might be time for some of the older players to consider putting themselves forward for admin status (and for some of the existing admins to think about stepping down, if they no longer have the time or inclination to process proposals and add new players - the sidebar says we have six active admins, which is plenty, but if we effectively only have two or three, it’d be good to make that clear).

Change the following text in rule 2.7.1 from

Only the first such comment by each Blognomicker counts.

to

Only the first pair of integers posted by each Blognomicker counts.

Hi, I Just Joined, And I’d like to post under the handle ‘Bluecloud’ (Without The Quotes of course!)

Create a new Rule titled “Bill Murray and the Brouhaha” with the following text:

If a Blognomicker participating in a Match possesses a {Time-Turner}, that Blognomicker may be referred to as {Bill Murray} for the remainder of the Match. Should a {Bill Murray} win a Match, that {Bill Murray} earns {10 points for Gryffindor}. Should a {Bill Murray} lose a Match, they must participate in a {Brouhaha} with a {Blast-Ended Skrewt}.

Create a new Rule titled “Bill Murray and the Brouhaha” with the following text:

If a Blognomicker participating in a Match possesses a {Time-Turner}, that Blognomicker may be referred to as {Bill Murray} for the remainder of the Match. Should a {Bill Murray} win a Match, that {Bill Murray} earns {10 points for Gryffindor}. Should a {Bill Murray} lose a Match, they must participate in a {Brouhaha} with a {Blast-Ended Skrewt}.

Hello, everybody!

Terribly sorry to have made a few votes before making this post, I missed that part of the rules. 

Anywho, I’d like to become a part of this game, using the handle ‘h2g2guy’ (without the quotes). 

Thanks!

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

  Through exceptional performance, Blognomickers can earn the attention, approval and patronage of the {High Command}.  Each Blognomicker has a certain number of Commendations, tracked in the GNDT.  New Blognomickers have 0 Commendations.  If a Blognomicker ever has more Commendations than the Victorious Blognomicker, that Blognomicker has proved to {High Command} that he is capable of command himself and gets promoted over the Victorious Blognomicker’s head, thus achieving victory.

If no more than 3 EVCs on this proposal contain the phrase “no bling”, add a subrule to the rule called “Decoration”.  Call it “Medals” and give it the following text:

*When each of a Blognomicker’s {Skills} becomes 10 for the first time, that Blognomicker is awarded a {Writ of Merit} for that {Skill} and gains 1 Commendation.
*When a Blognomicker has more than 40 {Lemurs} for the first time, he is awarded a {Hero’s Tail} and gains 1 Commendation.
*Whenever a {Containment Post} is successful, the Blognomicker who used the most {Energy} on that {Containment Post}, or all such Blognomickers in case of a tie, is awarded a {Cross of Courage}, and they gain 1 Commendation each.
*Whenever a {Spacebattle} ends in which at least one {spacecraft} has been {destroyed}, each {crew member} on a {spacecraft} that wasn’t {destroyed} is awarded a {Star of Service}.  They gain 1 commendation each.
*A Blognomicker with enough {Experience} may spend 100 {Experience} to gain a {Square of Seniority}.  That Blognomicker gains 1 Commendation.
*If a quorum of EVCs on a proposal contain a {Declaration of Epicness}, and the proposal passes, the Blognomicker who proposed it is awarded a {Pentagon of Penmanship} and 1 Commendation.
*As a Weekly Action, the {King of England} may award one Blognomicker a {Hexagon of Heroism} and a single Commendation.

Set everyone’s Commendations to 0.  Set the Victorious Blognomicker’s Commendations to 7. When applicable, the Victorious Blognomicker is considered to have already earned a {Writ of Merit} for each skill and a {Hero’s Tail} under the first two bullet points and is not eligible for further Commendations for their {Skill} or {Lemurs}.

Add a rule “Baseball”:

{Who} is on {first base}.  {What} is on {second base}.  {I don't know} is on {third base}.  {Why} is in {left field}.  {Because} is in {center field}.  {Tomorrow} is {pitching}.  {Today} is {catching}.

Add a rule “Crossing the Bridge”

Luck is a quality, which may be “Good”, “Bad”, or “Unknown”.  It defaults to unknown.
If you have Unknown Luck, and you roll an odd number for any reason on the GNDT, your Luck is Bad.
If you hove Unknown Luck, and you roll an even number for any reason on the GNDT, your Luck is Good.

{What} is your {name}.
{What} is your {quest}.
If you have good luck, {What} is your {favorite color}.
If you have bad luck, {What} is the {airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow}.

Just 8 hours left to propose new hooks. Then we need to get around to defining them.

Guess the final score of my proposal (will be opened after 48 hours).

Unfortunately, I idle out.

Keba.

With over a week of inactivity each, LordCooper, Ornithopter and Wakukee all time out and go idle. Coppro also goes idle as requested, and I think I’ll drop out myself. Quorum is now 12.

Add a new dynastic rule entitled, “I’m afraid I can’t do that” with text as follows:

Only one Blognomicker can be {HAL} at any given time.  {HAL} may choose whether or not to {open the pod bay doors}.  If {HAL} chooses to {open the pod bay doors}, then {HAL} and becomes Harmless and loses his status as {HAL}.  If {HAL} chooses not to {open the pod bay doors}, {HAL} becomes Harmful and {Dave} may attempt to {disconnect} {HAL}.

If “The Frist Amendment” passes, then add a subrule to the dynastic rule “The Rill of Bites” as follows:

Congress is the opposite of Progress; thus Congress is a subset of all Blognomickers composed of those Blognomicers who have, during this Dynasty, at least once, had an EVC that included a vote AGAINST a Proposal (excluding any Proposal that was made on or prior to May 13, 2010) where that Proposal failed by exactly one vote (for example, 5-6).  A Law is a Dynastic Rule proposed to be added to the Ruleset by the Blognomicker in question.

Shouldn’t the GNDT have a column for everybody’s Threat?

I idle as my browser’s refusal to display voting icons after the second day of this dynasty is making it unplayable. If it gets fixed, I’ll unidle.

Quorum remains at 14.

To rule “Matches” add a subrule “Guessing Game”:

This type of match is initiated when the Victorious Blognomicker posts a story post with the title “Match: Guessing Game”. Within 48 hours of the posting of that post, every other Blognomicker may reply in a comment with “X-Y”, where x and y are two integers. Only the first such comment by each Blognomicker counts. The first proposal the Victorious Blognomicker creates once the 48 hour period has elapsed is referred to as the Contest Proposal. Once the Contest Proposal is resolved, the Blognomicker (if there is one) who correctly predicted the For-Against tally of the votes on that proposal becomes {Swiss} Cheese. All other participants in the contest become Deliciousl, and the Match is over.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “A chain of non-sequiturs” with text as follows:

Whosoever {pulls} a {sword} from a {stone} is rightwise {King of England}.  The {pen} is {mightier} than the {sword}.  {Wite-out} is {mightier} than the {pen}.  {Bette Nesmith Graham} may create and possess {wite-out}.  The {son} of {Bette Nesmith Graham} is a {Monkey}.  A {monkey} with a {typewriter} may create {Shakespeare}.  {Shakespeare}, being a re-writer of history, may designate a Blognomicker as {King of England}.

In rule 2.8, change the word “roles” to “rolls”.

Attention admins- this would be a good time to admin the pending proposals

If any sentences in the ruleset begin “If a Blognomicker votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal”, then delete those sentences.

In rule 1.4 “Voting”, replace

If there is no Victorious Blognomicker, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention.

with

If there is no Victorious Blognomicker, or the vote is made by the proposal’s author on his own proposal, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention, and has no effect except possibly to void earlier voting icons by that voter on that proposal.

In Rule 1.5 (Resolution of Proposals), replace “The Blognomicker who proposed it has Voted AGAINST it.” with:-

It has an AGAINST vote from the Blognomicker who proposed it.

If any sentences in the ruleset begin “If a Blognomicker votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal”, then delete those sentences.

Quorum drops to 14.

Add the following sentences to Rule 1.5 (Resolution of Proposals):

If a Proposal is made when “Blognomicker” and/or “Victorious Blognomicker” went by different terms, then all instances of the old term for “Blognomicker” in the Proposal will be changed to “Blognomicker” if the Proposal is enacted and all instances of the old term for “Victorious Blognomicker” in the proposal will be changed to “Victorious Blognomicker” if the Proposal is enacted.  This rule does not apply to any Proposal that attempts to change “Blognomicker” or “Victorious Blognomicker” to a different term.

Add a dynastic rule, called “The Rill of Bites,” as follows:

{Congress} shall make no {law} respecting an establishment of {religion}, or prohibiting the {free exercise} thereof; or abridging the {freedom of speech}, or {freedom of the press}; or the right of the Blognomickers peaceably to {assemble}, and to {petition} the Victorious Blognomicker for a redress of grievances.

After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicker’s Vote” add “If a Blognomicker votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal, and the Victorious Blognomicker votes against, the proposal counts as being self-killed.”

Part 1: Add a dynastic rule entitled “Therefore, Socrates is mortal”, as follows:

An Argument is a type of Proposal that does not introduce one or more Hooks, but instead proposes to establish a meaning for one or more Hooks through deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning or both.  In order for a Proposal to be an Argument, it must be identified as such in the title of the blog post that comprises it.  An Argument does not count as a Proposal for purposes of the phrase “unless the Blognomicer already has 2 Proposals pending” in Rule 1.3, but no Blognomicer may have more than X Arguments pending at any time.  For example, if the Ruleset provides that “All dogs go to heaven”, and also provides that “Happiness is a warm puppy”, then an Argument, if it were made and enacted, could establish that “Happiness goes to heaven” (because happiness is a puppy as established by the Ruleset, a puppy is a kind of dog according to the ordinary meanings of “dog” and “puppy”, and any dog goes to heaven as established by the Ruleset).  There is established a section of the Dynastic Rules entitled “The Talmud” consisting of all conclusions that are established by means of Argument.

Part 2:
In Part 1, replace “X” in Part 1 with the number that appears in more EVCs to this Proposal than any other number.  If no single number appears in more such EVCs, then let “X” equal one.  If X equals one, then replace the phrase “X Arguments” in Part 1 with “one Argument”.

After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicer’s Vote” (if such a phrase exists) add “If a Blognomicer votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal, and the Victorious Blognomicer votes against, the proposal does not count as being self-killed.”
After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicker’s Vote” (if such a phrase exists) add “If a Blognomicker votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal, and the Victorious Blognomicker votes against, the proposal does not count as being self-killed.”

If CFJ “Solution A” passed, this CFJ has no effect. Otherwise, do the below:
After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicer’s Vote” (if such a phrase exists) add “If a Blognomicer votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal, and the Victorious Blognomicer votes against, the proposal counts as being self-killed.”
After “The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicker’s Vote” (if such a phrase exists) add “If a Blognomicker votes DEFERENTIAL on his own proposal, and the Victorious Blognomicker votes against, the proposal counts as being self-killed.”

Add a new dynastic rule entitled “Quality over Quantity”, reading:

Each Blognomicker has one or more Qualities that are conferred upon them by actions or definitions in the ruleset.  Each Quality explicitly created by a proposal shall have one column created in the GNDT to track the value of that Quality, and that proposal must list a default value and an exhaustive list of its possible values.  A Blognomicker may only have one value per Quality at any given time.  If a player “becomes”, “is”, “is made to have” (or similar wording) a value that is possible for a particular Quality, the new value shall replace the old value for that Quality.

If Proposal: Let the Battle of Wits Commence passes, add to “Vizzini’s Victory”:

Culture is a Quality.  Its default value is Florinese.  Sicilian, Florinese, Guilderian, Asian, and Australian are its potential values.

If Proposal: Remodeled Restaurant passes, add to “Heart of Gold”:

Threat is a Quality.  Its default value is Harmless.  Harmless, Mostly Harmless, Mostly Harmful, and Harmful are its potential values.

Enact a new dynastic rule with the title “Presidency”

Upon being elected President of the Galaxy, a Blognomicer is victorious.

Add a new Dynastic Rule called, “Heart of Gold”

If a Blognomicker ever roles a 42 with GNDT dice, than that Blognomicker may travel to {The Restaurant at the End of the Universe}.

Add a new Dynastic Rule called, “HHGTTG”

If a Blognomicker is {Mostly Harmless} than they may subsequently be elected as {The President of the Galaxy}

Add a dynastic rule called “Thin Thighs in 30 Days” to the ruleset, with text as follows:

FIRST: Every person in the fleet, who though cowardice, negligence, or disaffection, shall forbear to pursue the chase of any enemy, pirate or rebel, beaten or flying; or shall not relieve or assist a known friend in view to the utmost of his power; being convicted of any such offense by the sentence of a court martial, shall suffer death.  (Royal Navy Articles of War, 1757)  Each Blognomicker who has not suffered a Court Martial and is not a Criminal is a person in the fleet.

SECOND: And God spake all these words, saying: “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.  Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.  Thou shalt not kill.  Thou shalt not commit adultery.  Thou shalt not steal.  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.  (Exodus 20).  The second person pronoun (including the forms “Thou”, “Thee” and “Thy” in this paragraph SECOND refers to each Blognomicker, and “statements in the form “thou shalt”, “thou shalt not” and correlative forms are to be interpreted as commands or prohibitions.

Add a subrule to Food:

Players that are delicious are subject to the following limitations:
*They may not vote on proposals that modify only dynastic rules.
*They may not create proposals that modify dynastic rules.
*They may not participate in a match.
Players that are delicious cease to be so when they are {Eaten}.

Add a new rule, Matches:

As a weekly action, the Victorious Blognomicker may announce a Match. The Match must be one of any type specified in a subrule to this rule, and if there are no Match Types then a match cannot be held. The manner of deciding a Cheese, the eligible participants, and the activities contained within a match are different dependending on what type of match it is.

Create a new rule entitled “Terms of Service”, containing the following

A Blognomicker may not be provided {Service} unless aforementioned Blognomicker possesses a {Shirt} and {Shoes}.

For the purposes of this proposal, “blognomicer” and “blognomicker” are interchangeable, and the enacting admin should use the version that appears the most often in the ruleset when this is processed.

Add a rule “Groups”:

Each blognomicer may be a member of several groups, each denoted by a capital letter.  The current groups are “A” and “B”.  The membership of each group is tracked by its own GNDT column, the value of which defaults to “?”.  The only legal values for these columns are “X”, “?”, and “_”.  A blognomicer is in a group if and only if they have a value of “X” in the corresponding column.

At any time, any blognomicer may perform any of the following actions.  If the action requires a DICE roll, they must include the name of the blognomicer that will be affected in the GNDT comment when they roll the DICE:
* If any blognomicer has a “?” in column A, roll DICE2.  On a 1, replace it with an “X”; on a 2, replace it with an “_”.
* If any blognomicer has a “?” in column B and an “X” in column A, replace the “?” with an “_”
* If any blognomicer has a “?” in column B and an “_” in column A, replace the “?” with an “X”

Un-idle me please.

Create a new rule, named ‘Assorted Meats’, reading as follows:

Each {Match} must have a number of {Steak}s associated with it, with that number to be determined by the {Almighty Barbecuer}.
Each {Steak} is {Delicious} and {Meaty}.

Replace “Blognomicer” with “Blognomicker” throughout the ruleset.

This dynasty and I are not going to get along. Quorum drops to 14.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Vizzini’s Victory”, with the following contents:

No Blognomicer may participate in a {Match} with a {Sicilian} if the {Match} has an {Arbiter}, {Referee}, or {Judge}.  No Blognomicer may participate in a {Match} with an {Asian}.  No Blognomicer may legally take any action which would make themself both a {Sicilian} and an {Asian}, or both an {Asian} and an {Australian}, or both a {Sicilian} and an {Australian}.  All {Australians} are {Criminals}.

If the proposal “Plaing the Game” passes, add a dynastic Rule entitled “Going out”

If a Blognomicer’s score reaches a total of 42 than that Blognomicer may {travel} to the {Restaurant at the End of the Universe}.

Hopefully I still remember how to unidle myself properly

Add a dynastic rule entitled “The Court is Now In Session”, with the following text:

Courts are locations. The list of Courts is: Old Bailey, Wimbledon, The Food Court, The Supreme Court, United Center. A Blognomicer cannot move from Court to Court unless a Rule allows it. A Court can only be vacant occupied by two or more Blognomicers. If multiple Blognomicers are in a Court, they are in a Match together. The Victorious Blognomicer can add a Court to the list at any time, or remove a Court from the list if it is not occupied by anyone and if it is not referenced by name in any Rule.

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

Any Blognomicer can Challenge another Blognomicer who is not in a Match by posting an entry in the “Challenges” category stating the challengee and the Terms of the Match. The challengee can accept or decline the Challenge by posting a comment with the FOR or AGAINST icon, respectively. The challenger can withdraw the Challenge by posting a comment with the AGAINST icon, at which point it is the same as if the Challenge had been declined. If a Challenge is accepted, the challenger or challengee can move the Blognomicers involved to a vacant Court allowed by the Terms of the Match. An open Challenge is one that has not been accepted or declined.

A Blognomicer cannot Challenge or be Challenged if they are already in a Match, involved with another open Challenge. The Terms of the Match of a Challenge must allow for the Challenge to take place in at least one Court that is vacant at the time the Challenge is issued.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Terms of Matches”, with the following text:

Terms that must be in the Terms of a Match are as follows:

• The Court or Courts in which the Match must take place.
• The Referee of the Match, who must be a Blognomicer.
• The criteria by which the Referee shall determine the Winner of the Match

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Playing of Matches”:

A Match shall be Played in the comments to the Challenge that initiated it. The designated Referee can end the match at any time by posting a FOR (indicating that the challenger Wins), AGAINST (indicating that the challengee Wins), or VETO (indicating that no player Wins) icon. They can only declare a player to be the Winner in accordance with the Terms of the Match; they can additionally end the match without a winner if it is not feasible for the judging of the Match to be completed.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Score”

Every Blognomicer has a Score, tracked in GNDT. When a Blognomicer Wins a Match, they may increase their Score by One.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Icons of Challenges”

The icons of a Challenge entry should be as follows:

FOR

If the Match has been completed

AGAINST

If the Challenge was declined or withdraws

DEFERENTIAL

If the Challenge has been accepted but the Blognomicers involved are not in a Match

VETO

If the Match is being Played

Add a Dynastic Rule, entitled “I’ll take potpourri for $100, Alex”, with text as follows:

Article I: You are {standing in an open field} {west of a white house}, with a {boarded front door}.  There is a {small mailbox} here.
Article II: You may not {talk about Fight Club}.
Article III: The second person pronoun refers to each Blognomicer.

Part 1 (with a sly wink to Darth Cliche):
Add a dynastic rule entitled “A harmless drudge”, as follows:

The term “Hook” means a word or phrase in a proposal, the Ruleset or Gamestate, the meaning of which in the context of the current Dynasty is not obvious or apparent, such that one would ordinarily expect the Ruleset or Gamestate to supply a definition or explanation of that word or phrase.  Subject to the Hook Limitations, a particular word or phrase constitutes a Hook if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied with respect to it:
(1) The word or phrase is expressly designated as a Hook in the Proposal that proposes to introduce it to the Ruleset or Gamestate (and the use of {curly brackets} around a given word or phrase shall be deemed to constitute a means of such express designation);
(2) The Victorious Blocnomicer, in a blog post or a comment the Proposal that proposes to introduce it to the Ruleset or Gamestate, expressly designates that word or phrase as a Hook; or
(3) A majority of the EVCs to the Proposal that proposes to introduce it to the Ruleset or Gamestate contain text that expressly designates that word or phrase as a Hook.
A word or phrase that is a Hook ceases to be a Hook once the Ruleset supplies a definition or explanation thereof that does not require one or more other Hooks to be defined or explained in the Ruleset or Gamestate.  Thus, if the Ruleset contains the sentence “Socrates is mortal” (with the words “Socrates” and “Mortal” each being hooks), and a subsequent sentence is introduced into the Ruleset stating that “Any Blognomicer with exactly two pending Proposals is Socrates”, then “Socrates” ceases to be a Hook because its meaning can then be interpreted without reference to any other undefined or unexplained Hook.
A given Proposal may, subject to the Hook Limitations, contain any number of Hooks.  If there is any uncertainty regarding whether a given word or phrase constitutes a Hook, or part of a Hook, then the decision of the Victorious Blognomicer, or in the absence of his decision, the decision of the {General Secretary of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association} shall be final (such that, for example, if a Proposal uses the phrase “unladen swallow”, the foregoing process may determine whether “unladen” and “swallow” are each separately Hooks, or if the unitary phrase “unladen swallow” is a hook).

When a Proposal is Resolved such that one or more Hooks is added to the Ruleset, they may be so identified with {curly brackets} (even if the curly brackets were not part of the Proposal that introduced them), and if at any time a given word or phrase ceases to be a Hook, then any Admin may remove the curly brackets that so identifies it as a Hook.  The phrase “{curly brackets}” in the Ruleset with curly brackets around it is not a Hook, notwithstanding anything contrary in the Ruleset.

The Hook Limitations are as follows:
(1) Subject to the other Hook Limitations, after May 16, 2010 23:59:59 UTC, no Proposal may be made that Proposes the introduction of one or more Hooks to the Rulestate unless that Proposal would supply a sufficient definition or explanation so as to cause at least one Hook then in the Ruleset to cease to be a Hook.

Part 2:
If proposal: “The first Definable Concept” passes, then the words “Cheese”, “Awesome”, “Chocolate Cake” and “Delicious” are all Hooks.

Part 3: If proposal “Another definable concept” passes, then the words “Match”, “Judge”, “Arbiter, and “Referee” are all Hooks.

Add a new rule, “Safeguard”:

No dynastic rule may provide a measure to amend, create, or repeal a core rule. For the purposes of all other dynastic rules, this rule counts as a core rule. The Glossary section of the ruleset (section 3) counts as a core rule.

Add a new rule, “Overseer”:

The Victorious Blognomicer may not participate in a Match, but he may act as Judge, Arbiter, and Referee.

Add a new rule, “Food”:

Cheese is Awesome. Chocolate Cake is Delicious.

Add a new rule, “Food”:

Cheese is Awesome. Chocolate Cake is Delicious.

:

I thought for hours, trying to come up with an ascension address. Then I realized that this image sums it all up.
Replace Voter with Blognomicer throughout the ruleset. Replace Returning Officer with Victoriouis Blognomicer throughout the ruleset. Repeal all dynastic rules.
And a note: The two pending proposals do not time out for an extra 25 hours and 40 minutes.

Kalhaan and Roujo idle. Quorum is 14.

If you have any ideas for dynasty mechanics, feel free to discuss them here.

At 13:37 today I had more Ballots than any other Voter or any Party, and I therefore declare victory.

From the ruleset remove the following:

If the words quorum and Quorum are ever different, they effectively mean the same thing.

Replace

and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and that the words Voter and Returning Officer will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset.

with

and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and/or that the words Voter and Returning Officer will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset.

In Rule 1.10 (Fair Play), replace “A Voter should not “spam” the BlogNomic blog. What counts as spamming is subjective, but would typically include posting more than ten blog entries in a day, more than ten blog comments in a row, or posting a blog entry of more than 1000 words.” with:-

A Voter should not “spam” the BlogNomic blog. Spamming is defined as posting more than five blog entries in a day, more than five blog comments in a row, or posting a blog entry of more than 1000 words.

Delete rule 1.10 and change the phrase “For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.8 and 1.10” in rule 1.2 to “For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8”

Add a new subrule 1.1 to rule 1, entitled “Expectations and Consequences” with the following text:

To be a Voter, a person must fulfilled the following expectations:

No Voter shall abuse or manipulate any of the systems Blognomic uses, including but not limited to the website, ExpressionEngine, the GNDT and the wiki, to disrupt, cheat, or commit crimes.

Each person may only play one Voter, and each Voter may only be played by one person. Every Voter is responsible for securing any accounts they may have on any of Blognomic’s systems.

If Voter believes another Voter has not fulfilled these expectations or has otherwise harmed the Blognomic community, they may make a CfJ to punish the perpetrator. As a last resort, this punishment may include permanently removing the perpetrator from the game, and prohibiting them from rejoining.

I unidle.

Art imitates life, and just as the British contingent of BlogNomic will be currently thinking about how best to cast their ballot in the UK General Election, so to are we now close to the final 24 hours of voting for our next Emperor. Sadly, the imitation is not perfect, and this (somewhat less meaningful) election has resolved to a straightforward clash of two distinct visions. So much for my dream of Cleggish heroics :)

Still, it’s worth considering the options. On the one side we have Iepnw, who has pledged a “truly meta dynasty”. It seems to be implied that an Iepnw dynasty would be mostly themeless, focusing on “pure nomic” - the proposal, passage and interaction of rules, free of the distraction of a contrived theme, dedicated towards the aim of making a fun game. Iepnw states that he doesn’t have time for a “complex, intricate” dynasty, but would prefer something that is rooted in accessability and enjoyment. The recent trend against grinding would be maintained.

On the other we see Kevan, whose Mornington Nomic also has a fine pedigree. Based on the famously anarchic Mornington Crescent, this could be described as pure BlogNomic - a theme that allows for creative proposals without being restrictive, convoluted or relying upon prior knowledge. In practice, this would possibly be a more complex proposition, involving an interplay between ambiguous and possibly fictional rules and the more explicitly defined fare of a traditional nomic. Kevan is, of the candidates, the most open to migrants, describing his theme as “definitely encouraging for latecomers.”

Both options seem strong, and the voting remains close - a single ballot could decide this one way or another. Those undecided voters I see with empty GNDT fields should take this final opportunity to question the candidates before taking advantage of their democratic rights. And those to BlogNomic players who are UK-based - please do find your way to a polling station before 10pm tonight.

It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just don’t forget to vote!

I go idle.

In the eight months between my joining and Keba’s, we had 170 new accounts registered. In the three months since Keba’s registered, we’ve had seven hundred. The spam accounts are getting out of hand. Is there nothing we can do?

I would like to confirm with the BlogNomic Electoral Committee that I am a registered Voter.

Part 1:
Rename Rule 1.5 (presently entitled “Enactment”) to “Resolution of Proposals”.  In that rule, change the phrase “passed or failed” to “enacted or failed”

Part 2
Rewrite Rule 1.4 in its entirety to read as follows:

Any Voter may cast his Vote on a Votable Matter by making a comment to the official post that comprises that Votable Matter using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST, DEFERENTIAL (only if the Votable Matter is a Proposal), or VETO (only if the Votable Matter is a Proposal and the Voter is the Returning Officer).

In the case of a Propsoal, If the Voter who made the Proposal has not cast a Vote on it, his Vote is counted as FOR. If a Voter uses more than one Voting Icon in comments on a Votable Matter, his Vote is the last voting icon he uses. If a Voter leaves the game or goes Idle, his Vote is no longer valid. If a Voter votes against his own Proposal, that vote may not be changed. This is referred to as a Self-Kill.

A Vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Returning Officer. The vote will count as the same as the Returning Officer’s Vote. If the Returning Officer casts a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, it serves the purpose of cancelling any previous Vote on that Proposal that was cast by the Returning Officer. If there is no Returning Officer, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit Vote of abstention.

If no Returning Officer has voted on a Proposal, a vote of DEFERENTIAL on that proposal does not count as a vote for the purposes of rule 1.5.

Part 3:
In Rule 3.1 “Keywords”, add the following definitions:

Resolve/Resolution
The world “Resolve” means to perform the act, as an Admin, of enacting or failing a Proposal, a Call for Judgment or a Declaration of Victory.  The world “Resolution” means the act of doing so.

Votable Matter
The word “Votable Matter”, means a Proposal, a CFJ or a DoV.

Vote
The word “Vote”, used as a noun, means a Vote that is cast in accordance with Rule 1.4 “Voting”.  The word “Vote”, used as a verb, means the act of casting such a Vote.

Part 4:
In the definition of “Effective Vote Comment (EVC)” in Rule 3.1 (“Keywords”), replace the word “Adminned” with “Resolved”.

Part 5:
In Rule 1.6 (“Calls for Judgment”), replace the sentence:

All Voters may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry, using appropriate voting icons (a Voter’s later votes overriding their earlier ones).

with the sentence:

All Voters may cast Votes on that CfJ to indicate agreement or disagreement with the position taken in that CfJ.

and replace the sentence:

After this time, if more than half of the cast votes are in favour, the Gameset and Ruleset shall be amended as was specified

with the sentence:

After this time, if more than half the cast Votes are FOR Votes, the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating or correcting the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified.

Part 6:
In rule 1.9 (“Victory and Ascension”), replace the word “passed” with “enacted”, the word “passes” with the phrase “is enacted”, and the phrase “a passing DoV” with the phrase “an enacted DoV” wherever they appear, and replace the sentence:

Every Voter may respond to an active DoV saying whether or not he believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons).

with the sentence:

Every Voter may cast Votes on that DoV to indicate agreement or disagreement with the proposition that the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty.

Part 7:
Throughout the ruleset, capitalize all instances of the words “Vote”, “Voted” and “Votes”

In Rule 1.4 entitled “Voting” replace “Any Voter may cast his Vote on a Pending Proposal by making a comment on that entry using a voting icon of FOR, AGAINST or DEFERENTIAL.” with:

Any Voter may cast their Vote on a Blogpost by making a comment on that entry using a “Appropriate Voting Icon” (“AVI”). Generally, AVIs are FOR and AGAINST icons, other Rules may

In Rule 1.1, replace “including replacing Spivak pronouns with the singular “they”” with:-

including replacing Spivak and gender-specific pronouns with the singular “they”

Part 1:
Rename Rule 1.5 (presently entitled “Enactment”) to “Resolution of Proposals”.  In that rule, change the phrase “passed or failed” to “enacted or failed”

Part 2:
In Rule 3.1 “Keywords”, add the following two definitions:

Vote
The word “Vote”, used as a noun, means a Vote that is cast in accordance with Rule 1.4 “Voting”.  The word “Vote”, used as a verb, means the act of casting such a Vote.

Resolve/Resolution
The world “Resolve” means to perform the act, as an Admin, of enacting or failing a Proposal, a Call for Judgment or a Declaration of Victory.  The world “Resolution” means the act of doing so.

Part 3:
In the definition of “Effective Vote Comment (EVC)” in Rule 3.1 (“Keywords”), replace the word “Adminned” with “Resolved”.

Part 4:
In Rule 1.6 (“Calls for Judgment”), replace the sentence:

All Voters may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry, using appropriate voting icons (a Voter’s later votes overriding their earlier ones).

with the sentence:

All Voters may cast Votes on that CfJ to indicate agreement or disagreement with the position taken in that CfJ by using the process described in Rule 1.4 (“Voting”) as modified by this Rule 1.6, except that only FOR and AGAINST Votes may be cast.

and replace the sentence:

After this time, if more than half of the cast votes are in favour, the Gameset and Ruleset shall be amended as was specified

with the sentence:

After this time, if more than half the cast Votes are FOR Votes, the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating or correcting the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified.

Part 5:
In rule 1.9 (“Victory and Ascension”), replace the word “passed” with “enacted”, the word “passes” with the phrase “is enacted”, and the phrase “a passing DoV” with the phrase “an enacted DoV” wherever they appear, and replace the sentence:

Every Voter may respond to an active DoV saying whether or not he believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons).

with the sentence:

Every Voter may cast Votes on that DoV to indicate agreement or disagreement with the proposition that the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty by using the process described in Rule 1.4 (“Voting”) as modified by this Rule 1.9, except that only FOR and AGAINST Votes may be cast.

Part 6:
Throughout the ruleset, capitalize all instances of the words “Vote”, “Voted” and “Votes”

In Rule 1.6 entitled “Calls for Judgment” replace “All Voters may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry, using appropriate voting icons (a Voter’s later votes overriding their earlier ones).” with:

All Voters may add votes of agreement or disagreement in comments to this entry, using appropriate voting icons (a Voter’s later votes overriding their earlier ones).  If the Voter who made a CfJ has not cast a Vote on it, his Vote is counted as FOR.

In Rule 1.9 entitled “Victory and Ascension” replace “Every Voter may respond to an active DoV saying whether or not he believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons).” with:

Every Voter may respond to an active DoV saying whether or not he believes the poster has achieved victory in the current Dynasty (using the FOR and AGAINST icons). If the Voter who made a DoV has not cast a Vote on it, his Vote is counted as FOR.

Delete the second bulleted item after “A DoV may be failed if any of the following are true:” in Rule 1.9.

Enact a new rule, “Caretaker Government”:-

If a Voter is selected by more Ballots than any other Voter, then they are the Favoured Candidate. During this dynasty, a vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Favoured Candidate.

A vote of DEFERENTIAL will count as the same as the Favoured Candidate’s vote. If the Favoured Candidate casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL on a proposal, it serves the purpose of cancelling any previous vote on that proposal that was cast by the Favoured Candidate. If there is no Favoured Candidate, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention.

This rule takes precedence over Rule 1.4 (Voting).

From Rule 1.1 (Ruleset and Gamestate), remove “Rules may be referred to by their type, entire number and name or type and name. (e.g. This Rule may be referred to as Rule 1.1 Ruleset and Gamestate or the Rule entitled “Ruleset and Gamestate”).” and “A typographical mistake is defined as “A mistake in printing, typesetting, or typing, especially one caused by striking an incorrect key on a keyboard.”“

The current leaders are Ienpw III, Kevan, and Josh (purely because I voted to break the tie for third; I’ll unvote after making this post).

Leading candidates are invited to comment on how their dynasty would treat new players. Would it be a grind, where new players have pretty much no chance of catching up and have to sit out the dynasty? Or a very level playing field in which progress throughout the dynasty is meaningless because a new player has just as much chance at winning as an existing one? Obviously, both extremes are bad, but I’m not sure a sensible compromise has ever been reached. How would your dynasty solve the problem?

Sir Jumblin’ McGrumblin’ is excited at the prospect of playing a nomic.

Hope I don’t screw anything up…
-Jumblin’ McGrumblin’

I found the DDA. It is a party. I invite Qwazukee to join the DDA.

I, spikebrennan, withdraw my manifesto and urge any who had supported me to instead support Kevan’s Mornington Crescent manifesto.

I found the Party of Doom. If the PoD wins, Ienpw III shall be selected.

I would like to invite Kevan and spikebrennan to join me in the Democratic United Revolutionary Party (DURP).

Amend Rule 2.1’s third paragraph to begin:

At 13:37 UTC on Friday 7 May (which, for the purposes of BlogNomic, is known as “Christmas Day”), or at any point in time where at least 70% of non-blank Ballots read the same value or would be counted in the same party or affiliation, then the number of non-blank Ballots selecting each option are counted, and depending on which option is selected by the most non-blank Ballots, one of the following happens:”

My apologies for everyone’s Party defaulting to 0. I had to add it as a number field, because when I added it as a text field it gave me a drop-down menu with no options.

In Rule 1.9 replace the second bulleted item under “A DoV may be passed if any of the following is true” with:

* It has been open for voting for at least 24 hours, has a number of FOR votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and has a number of against votes fewer than half of Quorum, rounded down.

Delete the second bulleted item after “A DoV fails if any of the following are true:” in Rule 1.9.

In Rule 2.7 entitled “Leaders’ Debates” replace “the Returning Officer may call a Leaders’ Debate by posting a blog entry with a title “Leaders’ Debate: <Subject>” (where “<Subject>” is the a subject of the Returning Officer’s choosing)” with:

the Returning Officer may call a Leaders’ Debate by posting a blog entry with a title “Leaders’ Debate: [Topic]” (where “[Topic]” is the a topic of the Returning Officer’s choosing)

To the Keywords section of the Glossary, add the following:

Midnight: Midnight is the exact instant of 00:00:00. One day ends and the next begins at exactly midnight. Since midnight is an instant, even if the time reads 00:00:00, it is counted as being after midnight.

In rule Victory and Ascension, replace

The Hiatus continues until the new Returning Officer posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify the Returning Officer’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and that any keywords will be replaced with new theme-appropriate terms.

with

The Hiatus continues until the new Returning Officer posts an Ascension Address to the BlogNomic weblog - this shall specify the Returning Officer’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally include a proclamation that any number of Dynastic Rules will be repealed, and that the words Voter and Returning Officer will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset.

Hi there,

While reading the archives, I recognised the August 2005 archive is broken somehow. I get a “Content-Encoding-Fehler” (where “Fehler” means failure in English) in Firefox.

It‘s not that important, but would be nice, if someone fixed that.

Keba.

Add a subrule to rule 2.6, entitled Accountability

Any voter who achieves victory and fails to follow their manifesto pledges shall be barred from the position of Emperor for the next five dynasties (Starting after the end of their subsequent dynasty)