REPRESENTING: coppro, comex, arthexis, ais523

In today’s economy, the Government can run out of SPs.  This is an unfortunate occurrence.  Fortunately, there are methods for the Government to get out of debt.  Add a new subrule to “The Government”, titled “Printing Money”:

If any action would cause the Government to have 0 or less SPs, the Government is said to have Defaulted.  If the Government Defaults, it prints more money, gaining an amount of SPs equal to twice what it would have gained if it Taxed its citizens.  The Stimulus Package inflates, and at each point in the rules where it states an SP value, that value is increased by 1, unless it refers to gaining (“receiving”) SP or becoming eligible to gain an SP.

In today’s economy, the Government can run out of SPs.  This is an unfortunate occurrence.  Fortunately, there are methods for the Government to get out of debt.  Add a new subrule to “The Government”, titled “Printing Money”:

If any action would cause the Government to have 0 or less SPs, the Government is said to have Defaulted.  If the Government Defaults, it prints more money, gaining an amount of SPs equal to twice what it would have gained if it Taxed its citizens.  The Stimulus Package inflates, and at each point in the rules where it states an SP value, that value is increased by 1, unless it refers to gaining (“receiving”) SP or becoming eligible to gain an SP.

What do you think?

In today’s economy, ideal economic growth can only be enforced through a strictly bipartisan system that admits no compromise.

Create a new rule “Economic Paradigms”:

Each Player can be either a “Neoliberal”, “Socialist” or “Undecided”. This choice is tracked in a GNDT column called “Paradigm”. If a player has no Paradigm, their Paradigm is “Undecided”. An “Undecided” Player may change their own Paradigm to “Neoliberal” or “Socialist” at any time. Otherwise, a Player’s Paradigm may be changed only through Proposal or Call for Judgement.

Create a new sub-rule “Neoliberal Doctrines” under “Economic Paradigms”:

As a weekly action, a Neoliberal may roll DICEX, where X is half the number of Players they Employ, rounded down. Then, they become eligible to a number of SP equal to the roll result.

Create a new sub-rule “Socialist Doctrines” under “Economic Paradigms”:

As a weekly action, a Socialist may roll DICEX, where X is twice the number of Players Employed by the Government. If the result is exactly 1, all Employed Players become eligible to 1 SP.

If an Undecided Player changes their Paradigm within the next 48 hours of the enactment of this Proposal, that player is eligible for 1 SP.

REPRESENTING: SingularByte

Create a subrule of “Employment” called “Personnel Transferal”

An Employer who is currently Employed by another Player is referred to as a Manager. An Employer (the Transferer) may initiate a Personnel Tranferal at any time in the following way:
First they select a Manager they employ, and transfer an amount of SP to that Manager equal to half the desired number of employees, rounded up.
Then they select that number of employees who are currently Employed by that Manager and set the Employment of those employees to the Transferer.

So dropping out. Quorum is unchanged.

REPRESENTING: Darknight, Darth Cliche, southpointingchariot, Clucky, arthexis, Aquafraternally Yours, Doctor29

In today’s economy, neo-liberal policies have condemned the world to poverty and fragmentation. We have really cool gadgets, though.

Add the following paragraph at the end of rule “Employment”:

As a daily action, any player (known as the Patron) may transfer up to 1 SP to any number of other players they Employ (known as Laborers). Those Laborers that have received at least 1 SP this way are said to be Paid in Full, and conserve this status until a week has elapsed, or they cease to be Employed by that Patron, whichever comes first.

Create a new sub-rule to rule “Employment” and call it “Going on Strike”:

As a weekly action, any player (known as the Laborer) that has been employed for more than a week by the any other Player (known as the Patron) AND that is not currently Paid in Full, may initiate a Strike by making a story post with “” on its title. This post shall contain the name of the Patron. Each Player that makes a comment of “STRIKE!” within 24 hours of its posting may change their Employment from that Patron to Free Agent. After 24 hours of being posted, the Strike ends. While the Strike is ongoing, the Patron may not increase their own SP.

REPRESENTING: coppro, southpointingchariot, ais523, Bucky, Spitemaster

In today’s economy, business leaders should be more powerful than other Players, so it’s important to give lobbyists a large amount of leverage on politics.  Amend the rule “The Government” by replacing the first paragraph with:

The Government is a non-Player entity that has the same types of GNDT-tracked information a Player does.  For the purposes of the rules “Proposals” and “Votable Matters” and their subrules, the Government is treated as the Emperor and a Player, and may take any action those rules allow the Emperor or Players to take, but does not affect Quorum.

The Government may not directly veto a Proposal, but it may Object to any Proposal by posting a comment to the corresponding post containing the text “OBJECTION!”  If a Proposal has been Objected to at least twice, the Government is considered to have Voted to VETO it.

Any Player may transfer 2 SP to the Government to cause it to take an action the rules allow the Government to take, specifying any required parameters; this is known as Lobbying.  If the action would normally be taken by making a comment or blog post, the Player must make a corresponding comment or post, noting that it was submitted on the Government’s behalf.

REPRESENTING: comex, Spitemaster, Murphy, Bucky

Amend the Rule entitled “Calls for Judgment” by replacing

All Players may cast Votes on that CfJ to indicate agreement or disagreement with the position taken in that CfJ. Pending CfJs continue until they reach a Quorum of FOR Votes, a Quorum of AGAINST Votes, or until 48 hours have passed since they were posted. 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. Otherwise, the CfJ fails. A Failed CfJ has no further effect.

with

A Pending CFJ may be Resolved by an Admin if it has a Quorum of FOR Votes, a Quorum of AGAINST Votes, or if it has been open for voting for more than 48 hours. When a CFJ is Resolved, it is to be Enacted if it has more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes and Failed otherwise. When a CFJ is Enacted, the Admin Enacting it shall update the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified in the CFJ.

or by replacing

All Players may cast Votes on that CfJ to indicate agreement or disagreement with the position taken in that CfJ. Pending CfJs continue until they reach a Quorum of FOR Votes, a Quorum of AGAINST Votes, or until 48 hours have passed since they were posted. After this time, if more than half the cast Votes are FOR Votes, the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correcting the GNDT and other gamestate tracking entities, as specified. Otherwise, the CfJ fails. A Failed CfJ has no further effect.

with

A Pending CFJ may be Resolved by an Admin if it has a Quorum of FOR Votes, a Quorum of AGAINST Votes, or if it has been open for voting for more than 48 hours. When a CFJ is Resolved, it is to be Enacted if it has more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes and Failed otherwise. When a CFJ is Enacted, the Admin Enacting it shall update the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correcting the GNDT and other gamestate tracking entities, as specified in the CFJ.

whichever is appropriate.

Amend the rule entitled ‘Resolution of Proposals’ by removing

Proposals the Emperor has Voted to VETO are considered vetoed, and such a Vote cannot be changed. Proposals the author has Voted against are considered self-killed unless the Emperor has Voted VETO on them, or they have fulfilled one of the other requirements to fail a proposal before the author’s self-kill Vote is placed.

and by replacing the first bulleted list with

* 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 cast on it, more valid Votes cast on it are FOR than are AGAINST, and it has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed.

and by replacing the second bulleted list with:

* It could not be Enacted without either one of the Votes AGAINST it being changed, or the set of Players being changed.
* It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and cannot be Enacted.
* It has been Self-Killed or Vetoed.

Rewrite the rule entitled ‘Special Proposal Voting’ to read

When a player casts an explicit vote AGAINST their own Proposal, this renders the Proposal Self-Killed, even if the author later changes their Vote. The Emperor may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a proposal; when the Emperor casts a vote of VETO on a Proposal, this renders the Proposal Vetoed, even if the author later changes their Vote.

If a Player other than the Emperor casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, then the Vote of DEFERENTIAL is an indication of confidence in the Emperor. When the Emperor has a valid Vote other than VETO on a Proposal, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL are instead considered to be valid and the same as the Emperor’s Vote for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified.

Amend the rule titled ‘Dynasties’ by removing the sentence reading

The Emperor may Vote to VETO any Proposal.

Amend the rule titled ‘Votable Matters’ by replacing

Any Player may cast their 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 Player is the Emperor).

with

Each Player may cast one 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, or DEFERENTIAL. Additional voting icons may be permitted in some cases by other rules. A valid Vote is, except when otherwise specified, a Vote of FOR or AGAINST. A Player’s Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter. Additionally, if the author of a Votable Matter has not used a valid voting icon in a comment to the post, then the author’s Vote is FOR. A non-Player never has a Vote, even if they were a Player previously and had cast a valid Vote.

Amend the rule entitled ‘Victory and Ascension’ by replacing “Voting” with “Votable Matters” and by replacing the first bulleted list with

* It has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal a Quorum, and either the Emperor has Voted FOR it or it has no AGAINST Votes.
* It has been open for voting for at least 24 hours, has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal a Quorum, and has a number of AGAINST Votes lesser than half of Quorum, rounded down.
* It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, has a number of Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and more than half of its valid Votes are FOR.

and by replacing the second bulleted list with

* It has been open for voting for 12 hours and has enough AGAINST Votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those Votes being changed.
* It has been open for voting for at least 12 hours, and it could not be Enacted without either at least one of the Votes AGAINST it being changed, or the set of Players being changed.

Amend the Glossay entry for ‘Effective Voting Comment (EVC)’ to read

A Player’s Effective Vote Comment with respect to a given Votable Matter means that Player’s Comment to that Votable Matter, if any, that contains that Player’s Vote on that Proposal.

REPRESENTING: coppro, southpointingchariot, ais523, Bucky, Spitemaster

In today’s economy, business leaders should be more powerful than other Players, so it’s important to give lobbyists a large amount of leverage on politics.  Amend the rule “The Government” by replacing the first paragraph with:

The Government is a non-Player entity that has the same types of GNDT-tracked information a Player does.  For the purposes of the rules “Proposals” and “Votable Matters” and their subrules, the Government is treated as the Emperor and a Player, and may take any action those rules allow the Emperor or Players to take, but does not affect Quorum.

The Government may not directly veto a Proposal, but it may Object to any Proposal by posting a comment to the corresponding post containing the text “OBJECTION!”  If a Proposal has been Objected to twice, the Government is considered to have Voted to VETO it.

Any Player may transfer 2 SPs to the Government to cause it to take an action the rules allow the Government to take, specifying any required parameters; this is known as Lobbying.  If the action would normally be taken by making a comment or blog post, the Player must make a corresponding comment or post, noting that it was submitted on the Government’s behalf.

REPRESENTING: comex, ais523, Spitemaster

Add a new subrule to the rule ‘The Government’ entitled ‘Raising Taxes’ with the following text

The Government can, as a weekly action, Tax its citizens. When the Government Taxes its citizens, then for each Player, if that Player has fewer than 12 SP, the Government transfers one third of their SP, rounded up, to itself. If that Player has 12 or more SP, then the Government transfers one fourth of their SP, rounded up, to itself.

Add a new subrule to the rule ‘The Government’ entitled ‘Welfare State’ with the following text

The Government can, as a weekly action, Provide Welfare to its citizens. When the Government Provides Welfare to its citizens, each player with at least 2 but fewer than 9 SP receives 1 SP from the Government. If the Government does not have enough SP to give each Player their allotted amount, then no Player receives any and instead the Government Defaults.

REPRESENTING: ais523, Chronos Phaenon, southpointingchariot, Amnistar
In the rule “Downsizing”, change the text

The Employee’s vote shall be counted as DEF on that Proposal.

to

The Employee’s vote shall be counted as DEF on that Proposal, unless they are Represented by that proposal.

REPRESENTING: coppro, ais523

Amend the rule “Calls for Judgment” by replacing:

the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating or correcting the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified.

with:

the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correcting the GNDT and other gamestate tracking entities, as specified.

and by replacing:

Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically failed by any admin.

with:

Any CfJ that specifies neither changes to the Gamestate or Ruleset nor corrections to any gamestate tracking entities may be failed by any Admin.

Did you know that people can be hired when they have 0 SP, even if they are already hired by someone else? How cool is that?

REPRESENTING: Bucky

Add the following text to rule “The Government”:

The Government’s Employment is always ‘Sovereign’, and may not be set to any other value. The word ‘Sovereign’ is not a Player’s Name.

REPRESENTING: southpointingchariot, ChronosPhaenon, ais523, Bucky, amnistar

Append to the rule “Employment” the following text:

Any Player whose Employment is Free Agent may, at any time, change their own Employment to the name of any other Active Player.

REPRESENTING: southpointingchariot, Amnistar, Chronos Phaenon, ais523

Add the following text to the end of the rule “The Government”:

The Player causing The Government to take an action makes all choices required by that action.

Add a subrule to the rule “The Government”.  Call it “Taxation” and give it the following text:

If there are at least 4 Players who have a nonzero SP count, the Government may Levy Taxes.  When it does so, it transfers 1 SP belonging to each of 4 different Players to itself.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposal include the text “Employ Us”, add a new subrule to the rule “The Government”.  Call it “Bureaucy” and give it the following text:

The Government is considered to be a Player for the purpose of the rule “Employment” and its subrules.  Players employed by the Government are called Bureaucrats.

Some players are inactive, but still holding up the Quorum.

If a player named in this CfJ has posted an entry or comment since the posting of this CfJ, said player shall not be idled by this CfJ.

Render Idle the Players Clucky, Darth Cliche, eelpout, Qwazukee, Wakukee, Winner and zuff.

Delete the Appendix entry “Idling Post”.

In rule “Idle Players”, substitute anything after and including “Admins may render themselves Idle at any time” with:

An Idling Post is a post within which a Player requests to be idled or unidled.

If an Idling Post was made in the last seven days, an Idling Comment is a comment to that post within which another Player requests to be idled or unidled.

Any unidle Player may submit an Idling Post or Idling Comment requesting themselves to be idled.

Any idle Player, provided they did not go idle within the same dynasty in the previous four days, may submit an Idling Post or Idling Comment requesting themselves to be unidled.

Any Admin may accordingly render a Player Idle or remove their Idle status (“unidling”), if that player has made a valid Idling Post or Idling Comment in the last seven days. The Admin must announce the change in a comment on the relevant blog post.

If a Player has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days, any Admin may render that Player Idle. The Admin must announce the change in a new blog post or in a comment to the last Idling Post.

Rewrite the Appendix entry “Resolve/Resolution” so it reads:

If used in a context of a Votable Matter, the world “Resolve” means to perform the act, as an Admin, of enacting or failing a a Votable Matter. The world “Resolution” means then the act of doing so. If used in any other context, the meaning of both “Resolve” and “Resolution” is the standard English meaning of these words.

In the Rule “Votable Matters”, substitute “marks a Votable Matter as enacted or failed,” with “resolves a Votable Matter”.

In the Appendix Rule “Gamestate Tracking”, substitute the first occurrence of “Proposals, Calls for Judgment,” with “Votable Matters”

In the Appendix Rule “Gamestate Tracking”, substitute “Proposals, Calls for Judgment, Declaration of Victory,” with “Votable Matters”

In the Appendix Rule “Rules and Proposals”, substitute

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

with

Rules which trigger upon the Resolution of a Votable Matter are the responsibility of the Admin who Resolves it.

If more than half the EVCs on this Proposal contain the phrase “Leave them Alone”, the following changes shall not be enacted.

Ammend the Appendix entry “Core Proposal” so it reads

A Proposal which mandates changes that, even if conditionally, are limited to the creation, deletion, and/or amendment of core rules and/or the glossary, and/or renaming, banning, and/or the granting or removing of admin status from one or more Players.

Ammend the Appendix entry ” Dynastic Proposal ” so it reads

A Proposal which mandates changes that, even if conditionally, are limited to the creation, deletion, and/or amendment of dynastic rules and/or gamestate defined by dynastic rules.

Create a new rule, “Means of Production”

In today’s economy, income is not evenly distributed. This rule doesn’t address that, though. As a daily action, any player (known as the Worker) may Work. To Work, the Worker rolls DICEX in the GNDT, where X is 5 plus the number of Employees that the Worker has. If the result is 4 or greater, the Worker becomes eligible for 1 SP and the Player Employing the Worker becomes eligible for 1 SP.

I request to be made Idle

REPRESENTING: ais523, Amnistar, Chronos Phaenon, southpointingchariot, Bucky

Create a new rule, “Lawsuits”, with the text:

In today’s economy, who wants to work when other people are around to do it for you? Therefore, as a daily action, a Player, known as the Lawyer, who has 4 or more SP may spend 3 of their own SP and transfer 2 SP from a second Player, known as the Defendant, to a third Player, known as the Plaintiff. The Lawyer, Defendant, and Plaintiff must all be different players.

REPRESENTING: ais523, Amnistar, Chronos Phaenon, southpointingchariot

Create a new rule, “Lawsuits”, with the text:

In today’s economy, who wants to work when other people are around to do it for you? Therefore, as a daily action, a Player, known as the Lawyer, who has 4 or more SP may spend 3 of their own SP and transfer 2 SP from a second Player, known as the Defendant, to a third Player, known as the Plaintiff. The Lawyer, Defendant, and Plaintiff must all be different players.

REPRESENTING: ais523, Amnistar, Bucky, Chronos Phaenon, southpointingchariot

Create a new rule, “Lawsuits”, with the text:

In today’s economy, who wants to work when other people are around to do it for you? Therefore, as a daily action, a Player, known as the Lawyer, who has 4 or more SP may spend 3 of their own SP and transfer 2 SP from a second Player, known as the Defendant, to a third Player, known as the Plaintiff. The Lawyer, Defendant, and Plaintiff must all be different players.

...for having not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days.

Quorum is 19.

REPRESENTING: Soviet Brendon, CWW

Create a new rule called “Give away”:

Players may, once per day, reduce their own SP by any amount.

REPRESENTING:

Amend rule 1.7 by replacing:

the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating or correcting the Gamestate and Ruleset as specified.

with:

the CfJ may be enacted by any Admin by updating the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correcting the GNDT and other gamestate tracking entities, as specified.

and by replacing:

Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically failed by any admin.

with:

Any CfJ that specifies neither changes to the Gamestate or Ruleset nor corrections to any gamestate tracking entities may be failed by any Admin.

REPRESENTING: comex, Amnistar, southpointingchariot

Today’s economy often moves too quickly for the law to keep up.  To ensure that we remain the leader in economic innovation, enact a rule titled “Urgent
Proposals”:

Any Proposal whose title starts with “URGENT:” is an Urgent Proposal.  If an Urgent Proposal is Pending but not the oldest pending Proposal, any Admin may resolve it as if it were, ON BEHALF OF the Proposal’s author.

REPRESENTING:

In today’s economy, the average Player can not afford to have too many friends, or they might ask for too many favours, monetary gifts, or proposals of marriage.  Therefore, only the wealthiest Players can afford many friends.

In the rule “Involuntary Representation Service” replace:

A Representation Proposal’s text begins with the line “REPRESENTING:” followed by a list of Players. Those Players are said to be Represented by the Proposal. The author is always Represented by such a Proposal, even if not included in the list.

With:

A Representation Proposal’s text begins with the line “REPRESENTING:” followed by a list of Players.  This list may not include more Players than the amount of SP that the author has, or 2, whichever is greater.  Those Players are said to be Represented by the Proposal. The author is always Represented by such a Proposal, even if not included in the list.

Replace “amount” with “number” in the above text if “number” is more grammatically correct.

REPRESENTING: southpointingchariot, ChronosPhaenon, ais523, Bucky, amnistar, Pavitra, arthexis, Spitemaster, Ienpaw III, Flurie

In the rule “Involuntary Representation Service” replace “Dynastic Proposals” with “Proposals”

REPRESENTING: ais523, Amnistar, Bucky, Chronos Phaenon, southpointingchariot

In the rule “Employment”, change

Any Employed player may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by reducing their SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the player listed under their Employment by 1 and then changing their Employment to Free Agent.

to

Any Employed player with at least 2 SP may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by transferring 1 SP to the player listed under their Employment and then changing their Employment to Free Agent. This causes them to no longer be Employed.

Cause each player with an Employment of Free Agent to no longer be Employed.

REPRESENTING: southpointingchariot, ChronosPhaenon, ais523, Bucky, amnistar

Append to the rule “Employment” the following text:

Any Player whose Employment is Free Agent may, at any time, change their own Employment to the name of any other Active Player.

Some players are currently trying to exploit a non-existant loophole, by falsely reducing their SPs from 1 to 1 and turning back into being a Free Agent.

To avoid that, change the text:

Any Employed player may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by reducing their SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the player listed under their Employment by 1 and then changing their Employment to Free Agent.

into

Any Employed Player whose SP is greater than 1 may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by reducing their SP by 1, increasing the SP of the player listed under their Employment by 1 and then changing their own Employment to Free Agent.

Reverse any actions done under the presumption that there is a loophole allowing players to falsely reduce their SPs from 1 to 1 and turn back into being a Free Agent.

REPRESENTING: Amnistar, Pavitra, spitemaster, arthexis, lazerchik

Create a new rule “Weekly Productivity Report”:

In today’s economy, it is vital for patrons to take fast decisions (at least once a week). In order to competitively increase every Player’s chance to take the money and run, each Player that Employs three or more other Players may, as a weekly action, produce a Weekly Productivity Report. The player that authors this Report is known as the Analyst.

The Report is a story post with a title that begins with “[Report]” and describes the Employees’ productivity and future earning projections. The Analyst must include a tally where they recount the number of times each of their Employees has created a Proposal that has been enacted during the last week. Their Employee that created the most Proposals enacted during that week shall also be named Employee of the Week (if there is more than one Employee tied for the position, the Analyst chooses one of them). Then, the Analyst rolls XDICE6 in the GNDT, where X is the previously tallied number. Divide the roll total by their total number of Employees and round up to the nearest integer; the Analyst is eligible for a number of SP equal to this result. The Employee of the Week is eligible to 1 SP.

REPRESENTING: Moriarty, southpointingchariot, Chronos Phaenon

Append to the end of the Rule “Stimulus Package” the following paragraph:

New Players start play with the default value of 3 SP.

I just noticed that Aminstar reduced his SP by 1 (to a minimum of 1, even though it was already at 1) and then changed his Employment to Free Agent.  He didn’t increase Flurie’s SPs by one, though he should have.

Anyway, the CFJ is on the following statement:
If a player has 1 SP and is employed, that player can become unemployed through the last paragraph of the rule “Employment”.

REPRESENTING: Bucky, ais523, Bucky, Chronos Phaenon, Bucky, Amnistar, Bucky

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

The Government is a non-Player entity that has the same types of GNDT-tracked information a Player does.  If the rules specify that the Government may take an action, the Emperor may cause it to take that action.  If there is no Emperor, any Player may transfer 3 SPs to the Government to cause it to take that action. (this latter method of making the Government act is called ‘Lobbying’)

Set the Government’s SP to 200 and its Employment to “Free Agent”.

Sorry for being little more than a meatpuppet, but I fear I don’t have time at the moment to keep up, so could someone please idle me?

REPRESENTING: Pavitra, Aminstar, arthexis, Spitemaster
If the following text exists in the ruleset:

a) An Employer may, when voting against an Employee’s Proposal, declare that they are Firing that Employee in a comment on that Proposal.  They shall change that Employee’s Employment to Free Agent immediately, and their vote shall count double on that Proposal.  If the Employer changes their vote, it no longer counts double.

Replace it with:

a) An Employer may, when voting against an Employee’s Proposal, declare that they are Firing that Employee in a comment on that Proposal.  They shall change that Employee’s Employment to Free Agent immediately, and the Employee’s vote shall count as DEF on that Proposal, except for determining whether it has been self-killed.

REPRESENTING: Chronos Phaenon

In the rule “Stimulus package”, replace “ON BEHALF OF another player” with “ON BEHALF OF a player”.

In rule 1.2, delete anything after and including the text “Some Players are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar.

Create a rule 1.2.1, named “Idle Players”, which reads:

Some Players are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules “Ruleset and Gamestate”, “Players” , “Dynasties”, “Fair Play”and any of those Rules’ subrules, Idle Players are not counted as Players.

If a Proposal contains a provision that targets a specifically named Idle Player, then that Idle Player is considered to be Unidle solely for the purposes of enacting that specific provision

When an Player is unidled, if they went Idle in the same dynasty, their personal gamestate retains the last legally endowed values it had, if they are still valid. Otherwise (including if a value is invalid, does not exist, or the Player Idled in a different dynasty), the Player is given the default value for new Players, if such a value exists.

Admins may render themselves Idle at any time by announcing that they have done so in a blog post.

Admins may render a Player Idle or remove their Idle status (“unidling”) if one or more of the following conditions are met:
• That Player has made a blog post (an Idling Post) requesting this change in the last seven days;
• That Player has made a comment requesting this change on the most recent Idling Post, and that post was made in the last seven days;
• That Player is the Admin themselves;
• That Player has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days, and the action to be performed is idling, not unidling.

In the first three cases, the Admin must announce the change in either a comment on the relevant blog post (if they performed the change to themselves, then any Idling Post posted within the last seven days is considered relevant) or by making a new blog post; in the last case, it must be announced by the Admin in a new blog post.

A Player can only be unidled if they did not go idle within the same dynasty in the previous four days, the previous conditions notwithstanding.

All Players which were Idle immediately before this proposal was enacted become Idle.

for having not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days.

Quorum drops to 22

Too generic for my blood-equivalent substance. Quorum unaffected.

REPRESENTING: Bucky

If the proposal at “http://blognomic.com/archive/employment/” has been enacted, add a new dynastic rule to the ruleset.  Call it “Full Employment” and give it the following text:

If there is a Player Z such that each other player is either employed by Player Z or employed by a player employed by Player Z, Player Z achieves victory.

Rename Rule “Voting” to “Votable Matters”

Delete the Appendix entry named “Votable Matter”.

Add the following text as the first Paragraph of Rule “Votable Matters”:

A Votable Matter is a post which Players may cast Votes on, such as a Proposal, a Call for Judgment or a Declaration of Victory.

Move the following text from Rule “Votable Matters” to a new subrule of Rule “Proposals”, named “Special Proposal Voting”

If a Player Votes against their own Proposal, this renders the Proposal self-killed and that Vote may not be changed.

A Vote of DEFERENTIAL is a Vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Emperor. The Vote will count as the same as the Emperor’s Vote. If the Emperor 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 Emperor and counts as an explicit Vote of abstention. If there is no Emperor, or the Vote is made by the proposal’s author on their own proposal and the Emperor does not Vote on it, 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.

If no Emperor has Voted on a Proposal, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on that proposal does not count as a Vote for the purposes of rule “Resolution of Proposals”.

Delete the following text from Rule “Proposals”:

Proposals can either be Pending, Enacted, or Failed. When a Proposal is first put forward, it is considered Pending.

Add the following text to Rule “Votable Matters”:

Votable Matters can either be Pending, Enacted, or Failed. When a Votable Matter is first put forward, it is considered Pending.

In Rule “Calls for Judgement”, substitute “Unfailed CfJs” with “Pending CfJs”

Delete the following text from Rule “Resolution of Proposals”:

Whenever an Admin marks a proposal, CfJ, or DoV as enacted or failed, they must also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).

Add the following text to Rule “Votable Matters “:

Whenever an Admin marks a Votable Matter as enacted or failed, they must also mark their name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).

Move Rule “Resolution of Proposals” so it becomes a new subrule of rule “Proposals”.

Remove any numerical references to other Rules in Rule “Involuntary Representation Service”, leaving only the references to those Rules’ titles.

In rule 1.2, delete anything after and including the text “Some Players are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar.

Create a rule 1.2.1, named “Idle Players”, which reads:

Some Players are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules “Ruleset and Gamestate”, “Players” , “Dynasties”, “Fair Play”and any of those Rules’ subrules, Idle Players are not counted as Players.

If a Proposal contains a provision that targets a specifically named Idle Player, then that Idle Player is considered to be Unidle solely for the purposes of enacting that specific provision

When an Player is unidled, if they went Idle in the same dynasty, their personal gamestate retains the last legally endowed values it had, if they are still valid. Otherwise (including if a value is invalid, does not exist, or the Player Idled in a different dynasty), the Player is given the default value for new Players, if such a value exists.

Admins may render themselves Idle at any time by announcing that they have done so in a blog post.

Admins may render a Player Idle or remove their Idle status (“de-idling”) if one or more of the following conditions are met:
• That Player has made a blog post (an Idling Post) requesting this change in the last seven days;
• That Player has made a comment requesting this change on the most recent Idling Post, and that post was made in the last seven days;
• That Player is the Admin themselves;
• That Player has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days, and the action to be performed is idling, not de-idling.

In the first three cases, the Admin must announce the change in either a comment on the relevant blog post (if they performed the change to themselves, then any Idling Post posted within the last seven days is considered relevant) or by making a new blog post; in the last case, it must be announced by the Admin in a new blog post.

A Player can only be unidled if they did not go idle within the same dynasty in the previous four days, the previous conditions notwithstanding.

REPRESENTING: Amnistar, Pavitra, Spitemaster, arthexis, lazerchik

Create a new rule, “Proposal Protection Services”:

In today’s economy, Players can’t afford to bring bread to the table without working two or even three proposals at once. In order to more evenly distribute filibustering opportunities, players who are the authors of less than 2 pending Proposals can become Guardians of any Pending Dynastic Proposal P that meets all of these criteria:

a) P is Representing them explicitly.
b) They are not already the author of P.
c) P has no other Guardian already.

To become Guardian of a Proposal, the Executing Player must make a comment of “[PROTECTION SERVICE]” on that Proposal, ON BEHALF OF its author, within the first 24 hours since the creation of the Proposal. Then, the Executing player becomes Guardian of the proposal and is considered the sole author of that Proposal.

If at least half the EVC contain the phrase “Food Stamps”, then at the end of the previous rule add:

If this is the first time the Executing Player has become a Guardian in the last 72 hours, and the Executing Player has 3 or less SP, that player becomes elegible to receive a Stimulus Package.

All active players who have not yet done so are eligible to receive 3 SPs. You have until 29 Oct 2011 01:45:09 UTC to claim them.

Amend the rule entitled ‘Dead Body Collection Service’ by replacing bullet c) with

c) P has been Self-Killed.

and by replacing bullet d) with

d) P did not have a Quorum of AGAINST votes before it was Self-Killed.

and by replacing

ON BEHALF OF the author of that proposal.

with

ON BEHALF OF the Player who’s voted Self-Killed P or, if the author voted AGAINST P and the Player who’s vote Self-Killed P has no SP, ON BEHALF OF the author.

For the rest of this proposal the term ‘WikiPage’ refers to the edit of WikiPage by Amnistar with the Comment ‘Final Draft’. If multiple edits of WikiPage exists by Amnistar with the Comment ‘Final Draft’ this proposal has no effect. If this proposal is enacted re-calculate votes only counting EVC made after the date of WikiPage’s edit, if this new vote would result in the proposal failing, this proposal has no effect. If the date of the edit of WikiPage is more than 24 hours after this proposal was posted, this proposal has no effect. Enact the text of WikiPage

Create a new rule, “Proposal Protection Services”:

In today’s economy, Players can’t afford to bring bread to the table without working two or even three proposals at once. In order to more evenly distribute fillibustering opportunities, players who are the authors of less than 2 pending Proposals can become Guardians of any Pending Dynastic Proposals for which they are not already the author, and which have no other Guardian.

To become Guardian of a Proposal, the Executing Player must make a comment of “[PROTECTION SERVICE]” on that Proposal, ON BEHALF OF its author, within the first 24 hours since the creation of the Proposal. Then, the Executing player becomes Guardian of the proposal and is considered the sole author of that Proposal.

If at least half the EVC contain the phrase “Food Stamps”, then at the end of the previous rule add:

If this is the first time the Executing Player has become a Guardian in the last 48 hours, and that Player has 3 or less SP, that player becomes elegible to receive a Stimulus Package.

Create a new core rule “Drafts,” with the text:

Any Player may post an entry in the “Draft” category. The Body and Flavour Text of a Draft may be edited by its author at their convenience. Players may not edit the Title, Category, or any other aspect of their Draft not specificied as editable in the Ruleset.

In Rule 1.9, change

A Player should not edit their own blog comments once posted, nor those of any other Player

.to

A Player should not edit their own blog comments once posted, nor those of any other Player, unless otherwise specified in the Ruleset.

Change, in Rule 3.2

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, Declaration of Victory, and Idling Post

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, Declaration of Victory, Idling Post, and Draft

Add a new Rule to the Ruleset, named “You think”:

In this chaotic time, Players feel the need to bring order in their life, finding some firm points to build on. That’s the why all Players have (also “are a Followers of”, “Follow”) exactly one Philosophy, that defaults at Sensualism. The only valid values of a Player’s Philosophy are those listed as titles of the subrules to this Rule. As a daily action any Player may change their own Philosophy by spending 1 SP. Any Proposal that would amend the Subrules to this Rule is a Core Proposal.

Create a new Subrule to that rule, called “Sensualism”:

The Followers of Sensualism (also Sensualists) live a happy life. Whenever a Dynastic Proposal they authored is enacted, they gain 1 SP plus 1 SP for every 6 Open Proposals at that time.

Create a new Subrule to rule “You Think”, called “Skepticism”:

The Followers of Skepticism (also Skeptics) are not considered Players for the purposes of any Dynastic rule, except “You think” and its subrules. Whenever a Player stops Following Skepticism they set their SP to 1, and the other values (Philosophy excluded) to the default values for new players.
If a Skeptic has been following Skepticism for more that 36 consecutive hours, they start saying funny things and any Player may change that Skeptic’s Philosophy to Sensualism for the sake of decency.

Create a new Subrule to rule “You Think”, called “Marxism”:

Whenever one third (rounded up) of the Players is a Follower of Marxism (also Marxist), any Marxist may do a Revolution, making all the Employers lose 1 SP and all the Employed gain 1SP and then changing all the Employees’ Employments to Free Agent. They should also make a Blog post written in red only. Only Employees may become Marxist, but any Player may be Marxist.

Create a new Subrule to rule “You Think”, called “Heraclitism”:

There may not be more than one Follower of Heraclitism (also Heraclitus) at any time. Whenever a player Deidles, if their Philosophy would become “Heraclitism”, it is set to “Sensualism” instead, as a punition for stopping the flow.
Heraclitus may not post Proposals, but as a daily action they may vote to Veto any proposal as they were the Emperor by Transferring 2 SP to the author of that proposal. Changing one’s own Philosophy to Heraclitism cost 1 additional SP than what stated in Rule “You Think”.

Create a new Subrule to rule “You Think”, called “Platonism”:

The Followers of Platonism (also Platonists) have one additional values to keep track of: Chariot Control, that is an integer comprised between -1 and 6 included.
When a Player becomes a Follower of Platonism they shall set their Chariot Control to 1. When the Chariot Control of a Platonism Follower’s becomes -1, they start Following Sensualism.
Whenever a Follower of Platonism has a Dynastic Proposal they authored Failed, they lose 1 point of Chariot Control, for pursuing honour and glory rather than Good.
Whenever a Follower of Platonism comments on a Dynastic Proposal using a Voting icon, and they already commented on that Proposal using another, they lose 1 point of Chariot Control, for being impatient and not thinking properly the first time. They may only lose one Chariot Control Point per Proposal this way.
Whenever a Follower of Platonism has a Dynastic Proposal they authored Enacted, and they were Followers of Platonism when they posted it, they gain 1 Chariot Control Point, for using Philosophy for the Good of the Republic, but they do not gain any SP for the enactment of Proposals they Authored or they are Represented by. That would be so demo.
As a daily action a Follower of Platonism whose Chariot Control is exactly 0 may Step Out of that Cave by spending 1 SP to gain 1 point of Chariot Control.
When counting votes on Proposals, all the abstaining Players are divided in as many groups as the Platonists that voted on that proposal with an EVC including their current Chariot Control value. Every group shall contain as many members as each Platonist’s Chariot Control, and every group is considered to be voting the same as the Platonist. If there are not enough abstaining players to fill all these groups, democracy wins and the abstaining players will be considered to be simply abstaining (i.e. not counting their votes).
Employees may only Vote DEF on Dynastic Proposals that were posted by Platonism Followers. Platonism Followers should title their Proposal beginning with “Elite:”.
Employees may not become Followers of Platonism. If a Follower of Platonism becomes an Employee, they become Followers of Stakhanovism, if such a Philosophy is legal, otherwise they start Following Sensualism.

In “Numbers and Variables”, create a bullet point directly above the last bullet point with the text, “If multiple numbers or game variables are to be randomly selected at once, they must be selected independently, unless otherwise stated.”

Create a new bullet point in “Numbers and Variables” with the text “Unless otherwise specified, when a rule states that a variable tracked in the GNDT is to be changed by a Player, the change is to be applied to the variable belonging to the Player making the change.”

If the rule “Downsizing” exists, in the second and third paragraph replace the first instances of the word “Proposal” with “Dynastic Proposal”.

If the rule “Dead Body Collection Service” exists, remove all numerical references to rules.

A lot of you have been doing stuff like “If the proposal “Employment” failed, this proposal does nothing.” at the start of your proposal. Especially in a case like this, there is a reasonable chance that a proposal “Employment” has already been made years ago. (It doesn’t actually look like it has in this case, given the URL is just http://blognomic.com/archive/employment/). Regardless, conditioning your proposals based on various proposals passing is risky and you should either do “If the ruleset currently contains the rule X” if possible, or explicity reference which proposal you’re refering to with a URL or something.

Also, when cross references rules in proposals or rule text, ALWAYS refer to rules by name only. If you include numbers as well, they might change causing problems down the road.

If the proposal “Employment” failed, this proposal does nothing.

Create a rule called “Business”:

When a Free Agent is currently Employing at least 2 other Players, they may spend X of their own SP to create a Business of a type they meet the prerequisites for, where X is the Cost of Creation of the chosen type. They then become the CEO of the newly created Business. The CEO must pick a unique name for the Business and a unique abbreviation.

All Businesses currently in existence are tracked on the “Businesses” wiki page. All businesses must have a name, a 1-3 symbol abbreviation (which cannot contain numbers), a CEO and a type. If the CEO is anything but the name of an active Player or if the CEO is not Employing any Players, the business ceases to exist.

Create a subrule of Business called “Types of Business”.

Create a subrule of “Types of Business” called “Local Business”:

Local Business
Cost of Creation: 2 SP
Prerequisites: None.
The CEO of a Local Business may, as a weekly action, increase their SP by an amount equal to half the number of Players they are Employing. Any Players hired by the CEO in the last 72 hours (including by the use of the subrule “Personnel Transfer”) are ignored for the purposes of this action.

Create a subrule of “Types of Business” called “Media”:

Media
Cost of Creation: 5 SP
Prerequisites: Creator must have had one of their own proposals enacted within the last 24 hours.
The CEO of a Media may, at any time, spend 1 SP to Advocate a vote on a dynastic proposal. An Advocated vote is denoted by including “( X)” in a comment for a proposal where X is the desired voting icon. When tallying the votes for that proposal, if any deferential votes exist then one of them is removed and the Advocated vote is added. If two or more Advocated votes exist in a single proposal, all Advocated votes are instead ignored.

Create a subrule of Employment called “Personnel transfer”:

If a Player Employs a second Player, and that second Player is currently Employing other Players, the Employment field of all Players Employed by the second Player changes to the first Player.

When this proposal is enacted, the “Businesses” wiki page must be blanked.

If the Proposal titled “Employment” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Replace

At any time a player who is not Broke can Hire a Broke player by reducing their own SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the Broke player by 1 and changing the Broke Player’s employment to the Hiring Player’s name.  The Broke player is now considered Employed by the Hiring Player.

Any Employed player may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by reducing their SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the player listed under their Employment by 1 and then changing their Employment to Free Agent.

with

Each player has a Debt, a nonnegative integer tracked in the GNDT, and defaulting to 0.

At any time a Player with 2 or more SP (the Hiring Player) can Hire a Broke Player by transferring 1 SP to that Player, increasing the Debt of that Broke Player by 1 and changing the Broke Player’s employment to the Hiring Player’s name.  The Broke Player is now considered Employed by the Hiring Player.

At any time, a Player (the Boss) who employs another Player (the Servant), and who has 2 or more SP, can transfer 1 SP to the Servant, and increase the Servant’s Debt by 1.

Any Employed player with 2 or more SP may, at any time, reduce their Debt by 1 by transferring 1 SP to the player listed under their Employment. If this reduces their Debt to 0, their Employment changes to Free Agent, and they are no longer considered Employed.

Is there a reason for the Appendix to contain the keyword Artist instead of Player?
I don’t know if I’m allowed to change it myself.
The Appendix is part of the Ruleset, so it should have been changed too.
Right?

Add a new Rule to the Ruleset, named “You think”:

In this chaotic time, Players feel the need to bring order in their life, finding some firm points to build on. That’s the why all Players have (also “are a Followers of”, “Follow”) exactly one Philosophy, that defaults at Sensualism. The only valid values of a Player’s Philosophy are those listed as titles of the subrules to this Rule. As a daily action any Player may change their own Philosophy by spending 1 SP.

Create a new Subrule to that rule, called “Sensualism”:

The Followers of Sensualism live an happy life. Whenever a Dynastic Proposal they authored is enacted, they gain 1 SP for every 3 Open Proposals at that time.

Create a new Subrule to rule “You Think”, called “Platonism”:

The Followers of Platonism have three additional values (the Parts) to keep track of: Appetite, Rations and Spirit. The sum of a Player’s Parts may not be lower than 9.
When a Player becomes a Follower of Platonism they shall set them to 5 Appetite, 1 Rations and 3 Spirit. Whenever they gain points in Appetite or Spirit, they lose as many Ration point, and whenever the Sum of the Parts exceeds 12, they shall spend as many points (one by one) in any of the Parts until the sum drops below 10. If the Sum of the Parts has been higher than 9 for more than 23 consecutive hours, they lose ebough Rations to make the Sum become 9. If they have not enough, they become Sensualist. When any Part of a Platonism Follower’s becomes zero, they start Following Sensualism.
Whenever a Follower of Platonism has a Dynastic Proposal they authored Failed, they gain 1 Spirit, for pursuing honour and glory rather than Good.
Whenever a Follower of Platonism comments on a Dynastic Proposal using a Voting icon, and they already commented on that Proposal using another, they gain one Appetite, for being impatient and not thinking properly the first time. They may only gain 1 Appetite per Proposal this way.
Whenever a Follower of Platonism has a Dynastic Proposal they authored Enacted, and they were Followers of Platonism when they posted it, they gain 1 Ration, for using Philosophy for the Good of the Republic.
As a daily action a Follower of Platonism that has exactly 1 Ration may Step Out of that Cave by spending 1 SP to gain 1 Ration.
When adminning Proposals, all Against votes from Platonism Followers must be counted as the number of Rations that Follower had when voting, if that number is included in the EVC.

If the Proposal “Employment” has passed, add to the bottom of that subrule:

Employees may not Vote on Dynastic Proposals that were posted by Platonism Followers, and shall not be counted in the subset of artists that forms Quorum. Platonism Followers should title their Proposal beginning with “Elite:”.
Employees may not become Followers of Platonism. If a Follower of Platonism becomes an Employee, they become Followers of Stakhanovism, if such a Philosophy is legal, otherwise they start Following Sensualism.

I unidle. Quorum is unchanged.

If the Proposal “Employment” has failed, this Proposal does nothing.
Create a new rule, “Downsizing”:

In today’s economy, Employers (Players who have hired other Players) cannot afford to keep all of their Employees.  Therefore, in an effort to reduce overhead, they can use the following methods to reduce headcount:

a) An Employer may, when voting against an Employee’s Proposal, declare that they are Firing that Employee in a comment on that Proposal.  They shall change that Employee’s Employment to Free Agent immediately, and their vote shall count double on that Proposal.  If the Employer changes their vote, it no longer counts double.

b) An Employer may fire an Employee if that Employee voted against a Proposal that the Employer proposed, and that vote was their latest vote.  They shall comment on that Proposal, declaring that they are Firing that Employee, and change that Employee’s Employment to Free Agent immediately.  The Employee’s vote shall be counted as DEF on that Proposal.

When making a proposal reduce your SP by 1, to a minimum of 0.
When a proposal you authored is enacted or failed, increase your SP by 1.

Limits on the number of proposals you can have at any given time are ignored for this game.

This directly ties SP to proposal slots, giving it an ingame value.

Unless a proposal named “The New Four Part Plan” has been enacted, this proposal does nothing.

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

The Government is a non-Player entity that has the same GNDT stats a Player does.  If the rules specify that the Government may take an action, the Emperor may cause it to take that action.  If there is no Emperor, any Player may transfer 3 SPs to the Government to cause it to take that action. (this latter method of making the Government act is called ‘Lobbying’)

The Government may, as a Weekly Action for each Player, Award Grants to that Player.  When it does so, that Player becomes eligible to receive 3 SP.

In the rule “Stimulus Package”, change the text

Whenever a Player becomes elegible to receive a SP, that player may increase by one their SP count in the GNDT

to

Whenever a Player becomes elegible to receive a SP, that player may transfer an SP from the Government to themself in the GNDT

Set the Government’s SP to 200.  Set the Government’s other GNDT values to the default values for new players.  If it would be legal to do so, set the Government’s Occupation to “Iraq”.

Create a new dynastic rule “Employmeny” with the text:

Each player is either a Free Agent or is Employed by another player.  This status is tracked in the GDNT column ‘Employment’.  This is either Free Agent or the name of an Active Player.  If at any time a Player’s Employment is anything but Free Agent of the name of an Active player, it is set to Free Agent.

If a player has an Employment of Free Agent and a SP of 0, that player is considered to be Broke.
At any time a player who is not Broke can Hire a Broke player by reducing their own SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the Broke player by 1 and changing the Broke Player’s employment to the Hiring Player’s name.  The Broke player is now considered Employed by the Hiring Player.

Any Employed player may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by reducing their SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the player listed under their Employment by 1 and then changing their Employment to Free Agent.

If the Rule “Dead Body Collection Service” exists,replace:

If a player Represented by a Proposal votes AGAINST that Proposal, it counts as if the author of that Proposal has voted AGAINST it (in other words, it has been Self-Killed), for the purposes of the rule “1.6 Resolution of Proposals”.

With:

If a player Represented by a Proposal votes AGAINST that Proposal, it counts as if the author of that Proposal has voted AGAINST it (in other words, it has been Self-Killed), for the purposes of the rules “1.6 Resolution of Proposals” and “2.* Dead Body Collection Service”.

Replace the * in the above text with the appropriate number.

I wish to go idle.

I apologise for hopping in and out of BlogNomic, not doing anything except maybe inflating quorum. This last time I even had no intentions of doing anything more than helping Agora’s invasion plans. That’s not very nice, I know. I don’t play any nomic nowadays, and this time I promise: if I ever come back here, it will be because I actually intend to participate.

Best regards,
Tiger

If there is currently a rule called “Involuntary Representation Service” OR there is not a rule called “Stimulus Package” this proposal does nothing.

Add a new dynastic rule called “Voluntary Representation Service”. Give it the following text

In the busy world of today, it is a well known fact that not everyone can always make it to the polls. To equip players to both have their voice heard and yet keep their busy life styles a representation system has been established. Each player has a field tracked in the GNDT called “Representitive” and may, at any time, spend 1 SP (provided they have at least one) to change their Representitive to the name of any Player (including their own). New players start with their Representitive as themself.

Any DEF votes a player makes shall count as the same as their Representitive, provided their Representitive is still an active player. This chains, so if their Representitive also votes DEF it will count the same as their Representitive’s Representitive.

If an active player does not vote on a proposal upon resolution, and that proposal does not already have a quorom of valid FOR or AGAINT votes, has not been self-killed or vetoed by the emperor and has more than one valid vote, each active player who did not explicity cast the vote immediately casts the same vote as their Representitive (again, this chains). In the case where a player is their own representitive, their representitive is idle, or a chain is created, the players vote is considered to be one of abstention. If, including those votes and the valid votes explcitly cast on the proposal, more than half of the votes on the proposals are FOR then the proposal passes is enacted, otherwise is fails.

Set each players Representitive to their own name.

If the Rule “Dead Body Collection Service” exists,replace:

If a player Represented by a Proposal votes AGAINST that Proposal, it counts as if the author of that Proposal has voted AGAINST it (in other words, it has been Self-Killed), for the purposes of the rule “1.6 Resolution of Proposals”.

With:

If a player Represented by a Proposal votes AGAINST that Proposal, it counts as if the author of that Proposal has voted AGAINST it (in other words, it has been Self-Killed), for the purposes of the rules “1.6 Resolution of Proposals” and “2.* Dead Body Collection Service”.

Replace the * in the above text with the appropriate number.

Create a new dynastic rule, “Overstimulation”:

As a weekly action, a Player may Overstimulate a Pending Proposal that has not yet been Overstimulated, by spending 1 SP and making a comment “This Proposal has been Overstimulated” on it.

When an Overstimulated Proposal is enacted or fails, any changes to SP that would be made as a consequence of the enactment or failure (for instance, as a result of a rule awarding SP on the enactment of a proposal, or any instantaneous SP changes performed by the proposal itself) are doubled.

Each player is either a Free Agent or is Employed by another player.  This status is tracked in the GDNT column ‘Employment’.  This is either Free Agent or the name of an Active Player.  If at any time a Player’s Employment is anything but Free Agent of the name of an Active player, it is set to Free Agent.

If a player has an Employment of Free Agent and a SP of 0, that player is considered to be Broke.
At any time a player who is not Broke can Hire a Broke player by reducing their own SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the Broke player by 1 and changing the Broke Player’s employment to the Hiring Player’s name.  The Broke player is now considered Employed by the Hiring Player.

And Employed player may, at any time, change their Employment to Free Agent by reducing their SP by 1, to a minimum of 1, increasing the SP of the player listed under their Employment by 1 and then changing their Employment to Free Agent.

This proposal has no effect unless the rule “Stimulus Package” exists.

Create a new rule “Agriculture”:

Each Player has a Crop, which is a string of up to twenty characters defaulting to the empty string, tracked in the GNDT. A Player may, ON BEHALF OF themself, change the Crop of any one Player. When a Player’s Crop has been different from the Crop of each other Player for the last 24 hours continuously, and that Player has not increased their SP in the GNDT due to this rule in the last 24 hours, that Player becomes eligible to receive a Stimulus Package.

If the rule “Stimulus Package” exists, replace “the action can only be taken if the Affected player has at least 1 SP” with:-

the action can only be taken if the Affected player has at least 1 SP and is not Blockaded

If the rule “The 99%” exists, reword it to the following blockquoted text; otherwise enact this text as a new rule called “The 99%”:-

Each Player can Occupy another Player. A Player’s Occupation is tracked in the GNDT, can be changed as a daily action and defaults to - (indicating that that Player is not Occupying any other Player).

If a Player is Occupied by 10% (rounded up) or more of the current active Players then that Player is Blockaded. When a Player becomes Blockaded for the first time during a particular week, they are eligible to receive a Stimulus Package.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled The 99%:

Each Player can Occupy another player. A Player’s Occupation is tracked in the GNDT, can be changed as a daily action and defaults to - (indicating that that Player is not Occupying any other Player).

If a Player is Occupied by 10% (rounded up) or more of the current active Players then that Player is Blockaded, and any vote that they cast on a proposal is considered to be DEF for the purposes of proposal resolution. This effect only occurs while that Player is Blockaded; as soon as they cease to be Blockaded their votes count as normal for proposal resolution. Any Player whose effective vote on a proposal is changed as a result of being Blockaded is eligible to receive a Stimulus Package.

Create a new rule, “Involuntary Representation Service”:

In today’s economy, the voting power of Players has been damaged by inflation. In order to reinvigorate our limping lobbying industry, some Dynastic Proposals can be Representation Proposals. A Representation Proposal’s text begins with the line “REPRESENTING:” followed by a list of Players. Those Players are said to be Represented by the Proposal. The author is always Represented by such a Proposal, even if not included in the list.

Whenever a Representation Proposal is enacted, each Player it represents becomes eligible to receive a Stimulus Package.

If a player Represented by a Proposal votes AGAINST that Proposal, it counts as if the author of that Proposal has voted AGAINST it (in other words, it has been Self-Killed), for the purposes of the rule “1.6 Resolution of Proposals”.

If the ruleset contains the following text:

a) P is not the oldest proposal
b) P’s author has voted against it
c) P doesn’t have a Quorum of AGAINST votes

Change it to read

a) P is Pending
b) P is not the oldest Pending proposal
c) P’s author has voted against it
d) P doesn’t have a Quorum of AGAINST votes

Create a new rule “Stimulus Package”:

In today’s economy, most Players can’t afford Proposal Slots. To encourage legislative activity in Blognomic, each Player may be elegible to receive one or more Stimulus Packages (abbreviated SP). The number of Stimulus Packages that a Player has is tracked in the GNDT under a column named “SP”.

Whenever a Player becomes elegible to receive a SP, that player may increase by one their SP count in the GNDT once, but only within the first 24 hours of becoming elegible. Whenever a rule states that an action is taken “ON BEHALF OF” another player (known as the Affected Player), the action can only be taken if the Affected player has at least 1 SP. If the action takes place, the player taking the action (known as the Executing Player) must reduce the Affected Player’s SP by 1 as part of that action.

All active players are eligible to receive 3 Stimulus Packages.

If at least half the effective vote comments contain the words “bring yer dead” then, create a new rule “Dead Body Collection Service”:

If there exists a Proposal P for which all of the following are true:

a) P is not the oldest proposal
b) P’s author has voted against it
c) P doesn’t have a Quorum of AGAINST votes

Then, any Admin may fail Proposal P ON BEHALF OF the author of that proposal.

It’s been a while!  I’d like to un-idle and join the fray…

Alright so this is something I’ve been thinking about and, especially with this many people playing and proposals going the full 48 hours before being passed or failed I would like to have an open discussion about the benefits and downsides of allowing people to self-kill a proposal and have it immediately be removed from the queue.

I know many people say this encourages sloppy proposal writting and that may be true, but it also encourages people to throw out ideas into the game, making it more fun for everyone involved.  I find that by forcing proposals to run their full term it actually discourages activity in the game by having it stagnate with proposals that are obviously going to fail sitting in the queue and being unable to shift to new ideas. 

Thoughts on this?  I, personally, would love to propose several ideas that I’ve had, and since both of my ideas did not pick-up traction (although with 1 it is a bit early to state that as fact) it would be nice to be able to reclaim my slots and present new ideas to share those ideas.

Finally! excitement

With the new metadynasty just starting up, now seems like as good a time as any to jump and play, so I’m hereby requesting to be made a player.

I have an idea, but I want to see if it makes sense before proposing anything:

Whenever the number of players goes up, time to reach quorum goes up, conversely the game slows down. This is terribly counter-intuitive, but kind-of-expected. So I would propose changing the number of days before someone can be set to Idle, to follow this formula:

If the Quorum is 30 or more, time to Idle is 3 days.
If Quorum is between 15 and 29, time to idle is 5 days.
If Quorum is less than 15, time to Idle is 7 days.

Or maybe we could have two levels of Quorum, some “Hot Quorum” and a “Regular Quorum”. People that have been active in the last 3 days are in the Hot Quorum, and the rest of the active players are in the Regular Quorum. If a “Hot Quorum” of FOR / AGAINST votes is reached on Dynastic Proposals, then the Proposal can be enacted or Failed (if it is the last one, I don’t want to screw the queue). This will make gameplay much faster, but it will be a PITA to track who is in the “Hot Quorum”.

Thoughts?

Edit: Another idea - change the minimum time to fail from 48 hours to 36 hours.

If the Proposal “Let’s have a Theme” has failed, create a new Dynastic Rule called “Position” with the text:

Each Player has a Position tracked by the GDNT that is a string no more than 20 characters long.  The default Position for a Player is Refugee.

Add a sub-rule to the rule called “Position,” with the title “Immigration” and the text:

Any Player whose position is Refugee may roll DICE3 in the GNDT. If the result is 2 or 3, that Player must change their Position to Citizen. If the result is 1, that Player must change their Position to Landowner.

If the Proposal “Let’s have a Theme” has passed, replace instances of “Player” in the rule “Immigration” with “Colonist.”

Change all instances of Player in the ruleset to Colonist.
Change all instances of Emperor to Governor.

Create a new Dynastic Rule “Position” with the text:

Each Colonist has a Position tracked by the GDNT that is a string no more than 20 characters long.  The default Position for a Colonist is Refugee

If a majority of EVC contain the phrase Victory Now create the following subrule of Position “Founding Father” with the text:

If a Colonist has the Position of Founding Father, they have achieved Victory

Anyone Artistic out there want to make a Metadynasty header for us?

Add a new dynastic rule called “Birth of the Cool” with the following text

Each player has a potentially negative integer level of coolness, tracked in the GNDT in a column called cool. New players start with 0 cool. Players with negative amounts of cool are said to be Uncool. Players with positive amounts of cool are said to be Cool.

Create the following subrule of the above rule called “Lingo” with the following text

Certain words or phrases are cool. Other words or phrases are uncool. Cool and uncool words and phrases are tracked in a wikipage called “Lingo”, with cool words and phrases tracked in a section called “Cool Lingo” and uncool words and phrases tracked in a section called “Uncool Lingo”. Any time a proposal passes, right before the proposal is enacted the player who proposed the proposal has X added to their cool where X is equal to the number of lines from the Cool Lingo section page that appears in his proposal, not including the flavour text minus the number of lines from the Uncool Lingo section page that appears in his proposal, again not including the flavour text.

Create a wikipage called “Lingo” with the sections “Cool Lingo” and “Uncool Lingo” both originally empty.

I unidle. Quorum remains at 23.

After the sentence “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset” in rule 1.1, Ruleset and Gamestate, add the sentence “The Core Rules can be altered only in manners specified by the Core Rules regardless of any dynastic rule to the contrary.”

It occurs to me that, when I unidled, I didn’t add myself to the GNDT.  I go to do it, and, as you can probably guess, I find that I’ve forgotten the password.  Can some other admin help me here?

If the current Dynasty is a Metadynasty, create a new rule named “For the Greater Good”, reading as follows:

Players may join Masonic Lodges in the way specified in the Code of Conduct of every Lodge. If a Player who is part of a Lodge acts against its Code of Conduct, they are no longer part of that Lodge. Every member of a specific Lodge may change the Code of Conduct of that Lodge but only in the ways specified in the Code of Conduct itself.
Every Lodge has a unique Name and Code of Conduct, that shall be tracked in the BlogNomic wiki and must include the list of all the members. If a Player is the only member of a Lodge, the Lodge ceases to exist.
Three Players that have not Founded a Lodge in the last month may Found a Lodge by creating a wiki page that shall host its future Code of Conduct (that may or may not be blank) and each adding themself as a member. As soon as 3 Players are in it, the Lodge starts to exist, and the Code of Conduct to affect the members. When a Player Idles, they stop being part of all the Lodges they were previously part of.

Create a new dynastic rule “Factions” with the text:

Each player has a Faction which is a string of characters no more than 10 characters long tracked in the GNDT. At any time a player may change their Faction in the GDNT to any string of characters that no more than 10 characters long.  Factions are not case sensitive.

Whenever a player unidles or joins the game, set their faction to Blognomic.

Create a subrule of the rule Factions “Leaders” with the text:

Each player has a Role tracked in the GNDT. A player’s Role can either be Member or Leader.

If a player changes their Faction to a Faction that is currently held by no other active player, that player may change their role to Leader.

If a player changes their Faction to a Faction that is held any other active player, that player’s Role is changed to Member.

A Leader of a Faction may at any time transfer leadership of their Faction to another member of their Faction by changing their Role to Member and the player’s Role to Leader.
Whenever a player unidles or joins the game, set their Role to Member.

In the event that there exists a Faction that has no player with the Role of Leader, any Member of that Faction may change their role to Leader.  If there is only one player in a Faction, that player immediately has their role set to Leader.

Set each active player’s Faction to Blognomic.
Set each active player’s Role to Member.

The enacting Admin will use the GNDT to randomly determine the Leader and adjust that players Role.

If the current Dynasty is not a Metadynasty, this Proposal does nothing.

Create a new dynastic rule “Members of the Jury” that reads:

Some Players are Members of the Jury (or Juries for short), and can only become so as indicated by this rule. As long as there are at least 8 Members of Jury who are active players, those Juries are said to be Assembled; otherwise, they are Not Assembled.

As long as Juries are Assembled, Votes on Dynastic Proposals made by Members of the Jury are counted twice, but only if at least 5 Members of the Jury have voted on that proposal.
Members of the Jury cannot make a Declaration of Victory unless all active players are Members of the Jury.

If the the words “oligarchy is cool” appear on at least half of the effective votes on this Proposal, add the following text to the previously created rule:

Players who have registered to play Blognomic less than 1 month ago from the current date cannot become Members of the Jury.

Rebelyellow and lass have been idled (per post below this one and request, respectively). Quorum is now 23.

idle me. thanks.

If the Proposal named “A New Era” fails, this Proposal does nothing.
Create a new Dynastic rule called “Beyond Physics”, reading as follows:

Some Players are Rules. The Players that are not Rules have three Parts: the Appetive, the Rational and the Spirited.
Players start as not Rules.

I request that I become Idle.

Remove the following from rule 1.2

Admins may render an Artist Idle if that Artist has asked to become Idle in the last seven days or if that Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. In the latter case, the Admin must announce the idling in a blog post. Admins may render themselves Idle at any time by announcing that they have done so in a blog post.

In rule 1.9 Fair Play, change the sentence:

If any of these rules are found to have been broken, or if an Artist’s behaviour or actions are otherwise deemed unacceptable (socially or otherwise), a proposal or CfJ may be made to reprimand or punish the perpetrator or, in cases of extreme or repeated violations, remove them from the game and bar them from rejoining.

To instead read:

If any of these rules are found to have been broken, or if an Artist’s behaviour or actions are otherwise deemed unacceptable (socially or otherwise), a proposal or CfJ may be made to, if enacted, reprimand or punish the perpetrator or, in cases of extreme or repeated violations, remove them from the game and bar them from rejoining.

If the proposal entitled “Allow generic references” passed, append the following to rule 3.1, “Keywords”: A generic keyword in the Core or Dynastic rules can be replaced with its thematic synonym (defined below) by any admin.

This was possibly the least eventful session i have ever played. Primarily because i didnt bother checking the site. Anyway could i be idled? And (if possible) could someone be so kind as to alert me for the start of the next dynasty? Thanks!

Please idle me

Insert the following definitions into Rule 3.1, maintaining alphabetical order of keywords:

Emperor
  Generic synonym of Critic.

Player
  Generic synonym of Artist.

and append this text to the first paragraph:

A keyword defined in this glossary as a generic synonym is not affected (but the text of its definition is affected normally) by the replacement of a term with a theme-specific term throughout the entire ruleset.

If the terms Artist and Critic have been renamed since the creation of this proposal, then replace the same terms throughout the above text with their current versions.

Since Quorum Drano 2 had a bug and wasn’t really going to idle out that many people anyway, could people ask their meatpuppets (who aren’t continuing to play; I know monqy is, and lazerchik seems to be doing so as well) to idle out? There aren’t really that many left, and quorum is still pretty high. I’m working on getting mine to, just a matter of timezones…

Non-meatpuppet idlers aren’t that big a deal, since the seven-day rule is still there.

It relies on the top post, and for various reasons, I’m not sure the person below me would be ok with this. If I see what I think I’m going to see, I’ll comment on this post.

I want to go idle.

I request to become idle.

BADA DO BWOW.

Unidle me please. I was in the process of doing it myself, then realized I forgot the GNDT password.

If the Proposal titled “1, 2, 3, 4, Can I Have A Little More” failed, this Proposal does nothing. If the Proposal titled “No quiet awakenings” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

If Rule 3.2 contains the text

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, and Declaration of Victory.

Replace it with

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, Declaration of Victory, and Idling Post.

Change the name of the Artist or Player known as ‘Agora Nomic’ to ‘Tiger’

If two or more Artists actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if an Artist feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention, then any Artist may raise a Call for Judgment (abbreviated CfJ) by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgment” category, at this point the CfJ is considered Open.
All Artists may cast Votes on any Open CfJ to indicate agreement or disagreement with the position taken in that CfJ. Open CfJs continue until they reach a Quorum of FOR Votes, a Quorum of AGAINST Votes, or until 48 hours have passed since they were posted. 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. Otherwise, the CfJ fails. A Failed CfJ has no further effect.  At this point the CfJ becomes Closed.
Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically failed by any admin.
This Rule may not be overruled by Dynastic Rules.

Change the name of the player named ‘Agora Nomic’ to ‘Tiger’.

Amend rule 1.2 by replacing

Admins may render an Artist Idle if that Artist has asked to become Idle in the last seven days or if that Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. In the latter case, the Admin must announce the idling in a blog post.

with

Admins may render an Artist Idle or remove their Idle status (“de-idling”) if one or more of the following conditions are met:

1. That Artist has made a blog post (an Idling Post) requesting this change in the last seven days;
2. That Artist has made a comment requesting this change on the most recent Idling Post, and that post was made in the last seven days;
3. That Artist is the Admin themselves;
4. That Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days, and the action to be performed is idling, not de-idling.

In the first three cases, the Admin must announce the change in either a comment on the relevant blog post (if they performed the change to themselves, then any Idling Post posted within the last seven days is considered relevant) or by making a new blog post; in the last case, it must be announced by the Admin in a new blog post. An Artist can only be de-idled if they did not go idle within the same dynasty in the previous four days, the previous conditions notwithstanding.

and removing

Admins may de-Idle an Artist at their request, and Idle Admins may de-idle themselves at any time, unless the idle Artist in question asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous 4 days, and within the current dynasty.

If the Proposal “1, 2, 3, 5, Can I Have A Little More” has passed, amend rule 3.2 by replacing

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, and Declaration of Victory.

with

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, Declaration of Victory, and Idling Post.

If the dynastic rule 2.1 titled “Works of Art” exists, then amend it by replacing

Whenever an Artist posts a blog entry which is not a Proposal, Call for Judgment, Declaration of Victory or Ascension Address

with

Whenever an Artist posts a blog entry which is not a Proposal, Call for Judgment, Declaration of Victory, Ascension Address or Idling Post

Add to the glossary the following:

Idling Post

Any post within which an Artist requests to be idled or de-idled, or which is specifically designated as an idling post and nothing else.

Right now, anyone can send a carrier pigeon to an admin requesting to be de-idled, and then ten years later, an admin can perform that request silently. I know I didn’t notice a few de-idlings in the recent invasion until they actually voted, and imagine the case of someone voting and then being silently de-idled a minute later; we might never know, causing votes to be miscounted!

This doesn’t lead to a deluge of spam, since de-idlings at the start of a dynasty can be contained within the comments of one post.

I let admins announce idlings/de-idlings requested by comment in new blog post just in case a post gets locked for whatever reason; admins would be expected to apply discretion and use a comment wherever possible.

I allow idling posts to be created with no actual idling/deidling request so that one can be created, for example, at the start of a dynasty, to keep all de-idlings together.

This has unfortunately not gotten any less messy since the last draft! But this makes sure Idling Posts are a proper type of official post and the like. It’s not that bad, really. If “1, 2, 3, 5, Can I Have A Little More” passes, then this is unfortunately in conflict with the Drafts draft; apologies, I just didn’t want to make this any longer than it is. Hopefully this will be resolved before the Drafts draft becomes a proposal, anyway. :-)

Replace all instances of Artist within the ruleset with Player
Replace all instances of Critic within the ruleset with Emperor

Repeal all Dynastic Rules and start the Sixth Metadynasty with no Emperor.

Amend Rule 1.3 by replacing

Each Dynasty is headed by a single Artist, known as the Critic.

with

Each Dynasty may be headed by a single Artist, known as the Critic.  If there is no Critic, the Dynasty is a Metadynasty.

Repeal all dynastic rules. Begin a new Metadynasty. Throughout the ruleset, replace ‘Artist’ with ‘Player’ and ‘Critic’ with ‘Emperor’.

Add a new Dynastic Rule to the Ruleset.  Call it “Connoisseur’s Challenge” and give it the following text:

An Artist is Well-Connected if he has expressed Approval of at least 3 Works of Art which were created in the last week, at least 3 of which have had 4 or more Artists express Approval of them.

Whenever a Work of Art created after noon on October 24th, 2011 becomes a Masterpiece, if the Artist who created it is Well-Connected, that Artist achieves victory.

Change, in Rule 3.2,

A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement,  Declaration of Victory.

Create a new core rule “Drafts,” with the text:

Any Artist may post an entry in the “Draft” category. The Body and Flavour Text of a Draft may be edited by its Author at their convenience. Artists may not edit the Title, Category, or any other aspect of their Draft not specificied as editable in the Ruleset.

In Rule 1.9, change

An Artist should not edit their own blog comments once posted, nor those of any other Artist.

to

An Artist should not edit their own blog comments once posted, nor those of any other Artist, unless otherwise specified in the Ruleset.

If the Proposal “1, 2, 3, 5, Can I Have A Little More” has passed, change in Rule 3.2

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, and Declaration of Victory.

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, Declaration of Victory, and Draft.

Change, in Rule 3.2,

A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, and Declaration of Victory.

Immediately idle each Artist who does not have cast a valid vote on at least one of:

  1) This proposal;
  2) The Consensus Gamestate CfJ; or
  3) The original Quorum Drano Proposal.

For the sole purpose of this Proposal, deferential (:DEF:) votes shall be counted as valid, even if there was no unidle Critic when they were cast. Such deferential votes, if cast on this proposal, will count as explicit Votes of abstention, and have no effect whatsoever except to void earlier voting icons by that voter on this proposal.

Issue:

Several purported CfJs were malformed due to failure to describe what issue they were attempting to resolve. Also, it has been argued that some registrations may have not occurred correctly. Finally, there are a few people who suspect that the Faux Pas scam may have lingering effects. Any of these could potentially lead to a gamestate recalculation of unknown extent. Massive gamestate recalculations are, in general, a Bad Thing. This CfJ is intended as a ratification, with the primary purpose of reducing ambiguity regarding the current game state.

Therefore:

Set the ruleset to the version that was on the wiki at 00:01 22 Oct 2011. (That’s the latest version, so this shouldn’t change the rules from what we’ve generally believed them to be.)

Amend rule 1.7 (Calls for Judgement) by deleting the sentence “The post shall go on to describe the issue, and measures that shall be taken to resolve it.” (This is intended to avoid future confusion about what is and isn’t a CfJ. If people want that sentence in there, it can easily be proposaled back in; in the short term, this is the easiest way to avoid further muddling the game state.)

Change the section of the first paragraph of Rule 1.2 that reads

announcing their arrival

to instead read

making clear their wish to be an Artist

(This is intended to improve the clarity of the wording, and not to substantially change the game mechanics.)

If the wiki page “The Faux Pas” exists, then blank it. (This is intended as a just-in-case measure to clear out any remaining ambiguity regarding the Faux Pas scam.)

Fail all currently-pending CfJs and Proposals. (This is the easiest way to make unambiguous whether various CfJs and Proposals exist.)

(The rest of this CfJ is intended to ratify the player lists and such to be what we thought they were; if the arrival bug doesn’t exist, then it probably has no effect. One somewhat unfortunate side effect is that anyone who idles, deidles, registers, or deregisters in between the posting of this CfJ and its enactment will have that change reverted, and will need to re-whatever themselves afterward. However, this probably won’t happen, and even if it does it’s only somewhat inconvenient, and it’s probably unavoidable as a side effect of ratification.)

Set the non-Idle Artists to:

Agora Nomic, Amnistar, ais523, Blorg, Brendan, Bucky, Clucky, comex, coppro, Chronos Phaenon, CWW, Darknight, Darth Cliche, digibomber, Doctor29, dupdog, eelpout, Ely, Elias IX, flurie, Hix, Ienpw III, Josh, Kevan, lass, lazerchik, Libby, monqy, Murphy, Ornithopter, Pavitra, Phantom Hoover, pikhq, Prince Anduril, Qwazukee, rebelyellow, Roujo, Rodney, Seventy-Fifth Trombone, Schrodinger’s Cat, Sgeo, Shadowclaw, southpointingchariot, Soviet Brendon, Spitemaster, Tavros Nitram, Winner, Wooble, Yally, zuff

Set the Admins to:

Amnistar, Brendan, Bucky, Clucky, coppro, Chronos Phaenon, Darknight, Darth Cliche, Elias IX, Hix, Ienpw III, Josh, Kevan, Ornithopter, Qwazukee, Rodney, Seventy-Fifth Trombone, Shadowclaw, 90000, aaronwinborn, alethiophile, Angry Grasshopper, arthexis, Axeling, Cayvie, Chivalrybean, Devenger, epylar, Excalabur, Gobleteer, Greth, Jack, jay, lilomar, Oze, Plorkyeran, Purplebeard, Rodlen, Saki, Saurik, Seebo, SingularByte, smith, Thelonious, Thrawn, Truman Capote, Wakukee, Yoda, Zeofar, Axiallus, Bluebottle, Damanor, Dunam, est, Keitalia, Satyr Eyes, Simon, Topher, Wittgenstein

Set the Idle Artists to:

404NOTFOUND, 90000, aaronwinborn, Aemos, aeromark98, AgentHH, aguydude, ajhager, Alcazar, Alecto, Aleron, alethiophile, Allispaul, Altharis, Alzhaid, Ambisinister, Ambi Valent, Andy, Angry Grasshopper, anna, Anonyman, Antaeus, Apathetic Lizardman, Aquafraternally Yours, Aquila, aran, Armayus, Ar-Pharazon, arthexis, Axeling, Axmann BabylonJasmine, Badgerigar, Bahro, banana, Banjabanyan, bateleur, Beane, Bento, Blacky, Bluecloud, Bobbikk, BobTHJ, Brainslug, Brownie, captpir8, Cascadia, Cavaliere Pugrins, Cayvie, ChinDoGu, Chivalrybean, Ciaran, Clarinet, Cloj63, Coldspell, Combustable, Coolchris, Corlindale, Cosmologicon, Crumb, danopato , Da Vinci, David Mega, Darkside, Dazz, dbdougla, delta, Denis Brandao, dev, Devenger, DiEvAl, dogfish, Doodle, Doremi, Dr. Melon, Dr Zed, Dreson, Duke, Dustin, Edometheus, Eljefe, Enderbean, epylar, Escher, Euler, evilclown, EvilToaster, Excalabur, Falkuon, Fidelio, firefaux, FiSH, Florw, Freezerbird, FuzzyLogic, Galdyn, Galtori, garrinok, Gawain, Gazanga, Gazebo Dude, Geoff, geographyrules, Gill_Smoke, glopso, Gnauga, Gobleteer, gr4nf, Gramira, Greth, Grey, Greytyphoon, Gwydion, h2g2guy, Hello Sailor, hellzapoppin, Hockeyruler, Hyronious, Iammars, Icarus, Igthorn, imreading, Influenza, iqforu, Iron Man, Ironwrench, Isolde, Jacek_FH, Jack, Jamuraa, jay, Jeid, JelloGoesWiggle, Jesus, jmrdex, Jockawo, Joe, joe371, JoeFish, JoshuaGross, Jumblin McGrumblin, Jupiter, Kaddar, Kalhaan, Kau, Keba, keecz, Kels, Kelvin, Kneuronak, Lambert, Leurez, Lex10, lilomar, Lithophagist, Loen, Logan, lordcooper, Lugosh, Lunaetic, LykeX, macgeorge, MacMed, Madalyn, Masked Jedi, Maximus, Mescad, mideg, mistarr oconnell, Moonwryn, Mosby, Mossfire, muiro, Narya, Nausved, Neil, Nic, Night, Noah, NoOneImportant, NonnoNaz, Notafraud, nowhereful, OddRon, Oni Tainlyn, Oracular rufio, Oranjer, ovangle, Oze, Paladin, Pangolin, parsley, patio11, peacefulwarrior, Personman, Plorkyeran, Poe, predisastered, Princerepulsive, Psychotipath, Pteriforever65536, Purplebeard, Put, Qapmoc, Quazie, qwertyu63, Ralff, Rhontos, Richard, Rodlen, Rotwang, Royce, Rune Master Xan, Saakara, Saki, Salamander , Sanguine Teddy, Saurik, Scaramouche, ScrumHalf, Seebo, Seeking, SeerPenguin, SethOcean, Sgt. Zed, shallowminded, Sheelawolf, Shem, SingularByte, sixsidepentagon, smith, Snowballinhell7001, Soyweiser, Sparrow, SPBM, spikebrennan, Stormshade, Subrincinator, Syl, Sysiphus, TAE, Tagone, tecslicer, Tekneek, tem2, Tesla4D, teucer, Thelas, The Cube, The Doctor, The Lone Amigo, Thelonious, There, TheSmokingMan, Thorolf, Thane Q, Thrawn, Tiberias, TigerMoth, Token, Tommy, Travis, Tripwire, Truman Capote, tuxhedoh, Tuzgai, Ujalu, the unnecessary, Undef, Uvthenfuv, Vee, ViewtyJoe, Villainod, vostibackle, Wakukee, WhenInRome, WildCard, William, Wooden Squid, Woofy, Xaxyx, yabbaguy, Yoda, your mother, Zaratustra, zauper, Zebra, zebronic, Zephyr, Zeofar

Set the Unregistered Idle Artists to:

Axiallus, Ben, Bluebottle, Cafemusique, CaptTwinky, Cheater, CodexArcanum, Damanor, DarkElf, Doodle, Dunam, Dirk, E.lite, est, Euthydemos, Fjom, Garran, Glod, Hobbes, Inauspicious, Iron, Kahbn, Kamikaze, Keitalia, Kurt, Mal3, Mnemosyne, Mickey, Nephandus, Octave, Orkboi, Person, Satyr Eyes, sctfn, Shoji, Shade, Simon, Slipjig, Topher, Wittgenstein, Worthstream, Yagyu Jubei

Amend rule 1.2 by replacing

Admins may render an Artist Idle if that Artist has asked to become Idle in the last seven days or if that Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. In the latter case, the Admin must announce the idling in a blog post.

with

Admins may render an Artist Idle or remove their Idle status (“de-idling”) if one or more of the following conditions are met:

1. That Artist has made a blog post requesting this change in the last seven days (an idling post);
2. That Artist has made a comment requesting this change on the most recent idling post;
3. That Artist is the Admin themselves;
4. That Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days, and the action to be performed is idling, not de-idling.

In the first three cases, the Admin must announce the change in either a comment on the relevant blog post (if they performed the change to themselves, then any idling post posted within the last seven days is considered relevant) or by making a new blog post; in the last case, it must be announced by the Admin in a new blog post. An Artist can only be de-idled if they did not go idle within the same dynasty in the previous four days, the previous conditions notwithstanding.

and removing

Admins may de-Idle an Artist at their request, and Idle Admins may de-idle themselves at any time, unless the idle Artist in question asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous 4 days, and within the current dynasty.

Add to the glossary the following:

Idling post

Any post made within the last seven days within which an Artist requests to be idled or de-idled.

Right now, anyone can send a carrier pigeon to an admin requesting to be de-idled, and then ten years later, an admin can perform that request silently. I know I didn’t notice a few de-idlings in the recent invasion until they actually voted, and imagine the case of someone voting and then being silently de-idled a minute later; we might never know, causing votes to be miscounted!

This doesn’t lead to a deluge of spam, since de-idlings at the start of a dynasty can be contained within the comments of one post.

I let admins announce idlings/de-idlings requested by comment in new blog post just in case a post gets locked for whatever reason; admins would be expected to apply discretion and use a comment wherever possible.

---

Fixes incorporated from coppro and Ornithopter.

Again, any wording suggestions welcome. Note that the second point is /not/ susceptible to people making idling/de-idling comments on a post older than seven days, because the first point and the glossary entry mandate that the only posts that are idling posts must be less than seven days old.

In my time here, I’ve always thought CFJs to be a little bit on the strange side. They always just seemed a bit more like emergency proposals. Worse, they are ostensibly for correcting disagreements in the game state (such as the GNDT) that have cropped up, but in practice, they don’t, because they will propose a fix and sometimes, depending on how it’s worded, some Admin (and I’ve been guilty of this) decides that there is no such issue and proceeds to fail it for having no game state effect.

Thus I think we should change the way CFJs work and make it so that each CFJ presents the issue, two possible interpretations, and fixes to disambiguate either way and, if necessary, update the rest of the gamestate. Then someone can vote for either of these outcomes, or vote to throw the whole thing out, which is appropriate if it’s just, say, a power grab.

Thoughts?

Since it’s indeterminate how many past CfJs were posted, not realised to be illegal, and then later passed, Pavitra is currently working on a proposal to make sure the ruleset and list of players is what we think it is.

(Also, reposting a fixed spring clean CfJ is unnecessary, since the queue is much smaller than we thought it was anyway.)

If the term “Artist” in the ruleset is replaced by another term before this CfJ passes, use that term in place of “Artist” wherever it appears in this CfJ, including the change to be made to Rule 1.2.

Change the section of the first paragraph of Rule 1.2 that reads “announcing their arrival” to instead read “making clear their wish to be an Artist”.

Retroactively alter every action in BlogNomic history since the phrase “announcing their arrival” first appeared in Rule 1.2 to have happened as if, at the time, that section of Rule 1.2 had instead read “making clear their wish to be a [Player]”, where “[Player]” is the singular of the noun used at that time as the title of Rule 1.2.

If the admin who enacts this CfJ feels that any part of BlogNomic history should differ from the way it is currently recorded due to this CfJ’s effects, that admin must make a CfJ that would make those changes, explaining what changes are to be made and why. None of the listed changes to BlogNomic history take effect until that CfJ passes.

For each of the following CfJs, if that CfJ is pending, then fail it:

• 12/18/08
• Call for Judgment: Categorical imperative, redux
• pass me quick
• too many?
• Emergency Law
• Emergency Law patch
• CfJ: Why can’t we all just get along?
• Big Red Button
• CfJ: The only option
• CfJ: Friends together Redux
• Legally Cleaning Up 1.7
• FOR THE LOVE OF SUBER
• Well, now that that’s over
• Time to take control
• Hey, you know what happens when you look for core rules scams?
• Time travel can’t change the past

Do not independently admin the CfJs mentioned there until the cleanup CfJ passes. As far as people on IRC can tell, that would cause the cleanup CfJ to fail.

Amend rule 1.2 by replacing

Admins may render an Artist Idle if that Artist has asked to become Idle in the last seven days or if that Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. In the latter case, the Admin must announce the idling in a blog post.

with

Admins may render an Artist Idle, or remove their Idle status (“de-idling”), or if one or more of the following conditions are met:

1. That Artist has made a blog post requesting this change in the last seven days (an idling post);
2. That Artist has made a comment requesting this change on a blog post, and that blog post is an idling post, and was posted within the last seven days;
3. That Artist is the Admin themselves;
4. That Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days, and the action to be performed is idling, not de-idling.

In the first three cases, the Admin must announce the change in either a comment on the relevant blog post (if they performed the change to themselves, then any idling post posted within the last seven days is considered relevant) or by making a new blog post; in the last case, it must be announced by the Admin in a new blog post.

and removing

Admins may de-Idle an Artist at their request, and Idle Admins may de-idle themselves at any time, unless the idle Artist in question asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous 4 days, and within the current dynasty.

If the following CfJ’s are still pending, fail them:

12/18/08
Call for Judgment: Categorical imperative, redux
pass me quick
too many?
Emergency Law
Emergency Law patch
CfJ: Why can’t we all just get along?
Big Red Button
CfJ: The only option
CfJ: Friends together Redux
Legally Cleaning Up 1.7
FOR THE LOVE OF SUBER
Well, now that that’s over
Time to take control
Hey, you know what happens when you look for core rules scams?
Time travel can’t change the past

Just a heads up that the Agora bloc voters appears to have been told to post a FOR arrow and the phrase “CoV” on Ais’s dictatorship CfJ, if anyone who hasn’t yet voted wishes to review it.

Proposals have to be resolved in chronological order, and some of the older ones don’t have very many votes. Please check the pending proposals on the sidebar and make sure that you have voted on all of them. This will help keep things moving smoothly.

Thank you for your time.

Please unidle me. Quorum is too low.
Thank you.

Amend Rule 1.3 by replacing

Each Dynasty is headed by a single Artist, known as the Critic.

with

Each Dynasty may be headed by a single Artist, known as the Critic.  If there is no Critic, the Dynasty is a Metadynasty.

(If “Artist” and “Critic” have been replaced in the Ruleset, use the new terms in the text to replace and replacement text.)

Quorum is unusually high right now. Could anyone who doesn’t intend to stick around for the foreseeable future kindly post here so that an admin can idle you? This will make the game somewhat easier to play for those remaining.

Many thanks.

http://blognomic.com/archive/cfj_attn_cotc/P100

or, Foul Play (by whose standards?)

Hmm… so I was right.  I wake up, and it is Over: Attn: CotC has been failed, not once, but three times!  Although the blog software has mysteriously cut off posts so that we can’t see the last few votes, it seems that the arrival of rebelyellow, lass, and Phantom Hoover [looks like Phantom Hoover was ehird’s, see comments :/] was integral to the outcome.  Fair enough, we also used meatpuppets.  But since they signed up rather than deidling, where did they come from?  Googling their names along with “nomic” doesn’t find anything.

Are they just random people, friends of BlogNomickers?

One of the crucial rules we [mostly, see comments :/] followed is that only Nomic players, current and former, could be recruited.  I wanted this to make the invasion more in the spirit of Nomic, to ensure that “meatpuppets joining to vote FOR” and “people who will actually play once the dynasty starts” were reasonably correlated lists, and, most importantly, to make this a solvable game, to make the voters members of a relatively limited pool, who would have enough understanding of what was going on to be interested if partisan participants, rather than mechanical Turks.  When each new player joined, there was a moment of bated breath as we saw which side he was on; after a while, we started to run out of players, and it became important to try to convince existing BlogNomickers to vote FOR (although we didn’t have much success) rather than just recruiting more people.  I am not just saying this because we lost—for most of the voting period, this rule significantly benefitted BlogNomic, as while BlogNomic has always had more players than Agora and has a large set of idle players, I have 190,000 Twitter followers who might have been persuaded to submit some forms.  But that would be stupid.

No defenders ever agreed to the aforesaid scheme, and in some ways “people who have played Nomic” is a quite arbitrary set, but I cannot think of an interpretation under which using random pure meatpuppets does not constitute upending the chessboard. 

But I guess that’s the point: several players think that we have already upended the chessboard by invading in the first place, and just wanted to end the invasion by any means necessary, quite fine to proceed with anything valid under the rules.  (Incidentally, if I am wrong about those three players, this argument is quite invalid, but I think the preceding statement is still largely true.)  Kevan commented that the invasion is “incredibly boring” and “massively poor form” and we are “arrogant” and it’s “sad”:

> It feels like some kids with nerf guns have started shooting at our chessboard and telling us how fun it would be to start throwing the pieces back at them. Look, we’ve already made a barricade to hide behind! You could make one too!

I want to rebut this: not for any practical gain, as I doubt this post will convince anyone of anything and even if it did, calling a revote would be rather lame; but just to make certain players think.  And after that, I will apologize.

His is a reasonable analogy, after all, and it’s true—in a sense we’ve come over and forced a largely isolationist game to play a game with us.  But Nomic is not chess: Agora is not, BlogNomic is not.  Nomic is *fundamentally different* from chess because it features the unique element of scams, where I can find a loophole that lets me teleport my knight to the other side of the board, and the other player will congratulate me instead of storming out of the room.  BlogNomic deemphasizes scams, but they happen all the time and rarely feature digust and massive backlash and arguments about the spirit of the game; Bucky garnered nothing but praise for re-enacting a CfJ in clear violation of how they ought to work, and rightly so, as it was an interesting discovery: a strong Nomic tradition, which has not failed to take hold here, states that finding interesting uses of the rules is a welcomed form of gameplay.  The invasion was received as it was not because of a fundamental difference in meta-ness, as Kevan would claim; but essentially because under various measures, an invasion is *more egregious* than a regular scam.

And of course it is.  The reason the concept of an invasion is so famous is because it represents multiple extremes.  It is probably the simplest (and most universal) possible scam; it requires more participants than any other scam; and it produces greater and more sudden intermingling of two little cultures than any other type of foreign relations.  The first two suggest that an invasion is the most basic and least desirable of all possible scams, but its extremeness makes it rare and, thus, unique.  In the 5-6 years I’ve paid attention to Nomic (not so much, I know, compared to some of the players here), I only remember Agora having two war-like events and they were both very minor*: certainly I have never seen anyone go full-on invasion on anyone else, and I have no records of it happening since the Risho-Agoran War in 1997.  The hope is that these factors are countered because the uniqueness of a scam *makes* it interesting—makes people think about things they usually take for granted.

And you must admit it’s not all bad.  The third extreme, the intermingling of cultures, though it happens quickly enough to inevitably produce culture shock, is not all that bad.  We got to know each other better.  The process of getting people on board with one side or other and coping with a huge amount of activity is, to me, an inherently fun and rewarding activity.  It tends to burn people out and shouldn’t be kept going for too long—but the 9 hours after the CfJ was submitted comprised probably the fastest sustained nomic play I’ve ever experienced, and I haven’t had as much fun in a long time.  Meanwhile, like any scam, especially those with long critical timing periods, an invasion should invite people to plot counter-scams, the sort of “find interesting bugs in the ruleset” process that wasn’t involved in the original attack but might be in the defense—as we saw with Bucky.  If from nothing else, I think many BlogNomic players got a kick out of what he did.

So yes, Kevan:
- You are supposed to be pleased at the excitement of the invasion.
- I do understand the difference in playing styles between the two games—as a rare player, not all that well, but well enough that I was not particularly surprised by the outcome.  I’m sure ais523 and coppro understand it even better.

After all, even in Agora—even in B, I think, which once encouraged as much more silliness than Agora as Agora encouraged compared to BlogNomic, people have violently rejected scams as contrary to the spirit of the game, because regardless of your theoretical opinion of them, it’s natural to get angry when you appear to have been dominated.  I’ve felt that way more than once—on the occasions when ais523 has taken over the game, I’ve felt powerless and trapped, tried to lash out, savored the ability, when it came, to tell the dictator to pack his bags—and I’ve been on the receiving end of it many times.  I’m sure some of you would appreciate the sentiment of this comment:

In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are
written, if the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling
little rules-breaking shit, the game is ruined because you are playing
with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit.

In Agora, some of it is always due to tunnel vision and passes with time, and perhaps some of it remains.  Perhaps more of it will remain in BlogNomic than Agora.

It’s unfortunate and a little depressing, because I don’t want to ruin the playing experience of anyone else—I’m not usually that kind of person.  It’s only because scams have the potential to be so massively fun, where and when they work right, that I continue to try them.

So I (on my own behalf, as I can still hardly speak for others) apologize for those for whom this invasion was an unacceptable, degenerate form of gameplay; I hope that it was worth it for Darth Cliche, Prince Anduril, bateleur, Purplebeard, and Qwazukee, who expressed enjoyment at either the process of invasion itself, the potential results of an invasion, or at least the brief reunion of old BlogNomic players that resulted (without implying that those players are “on my side” in any way), and I hope the rest can forgive me.

Some other points:

- zuff (ehird) is great, but he made various arguments on the blog that I think most of us would disagree with.  He argued that it was the easiest way to get BlogNomic out of a crisis, but I would never have said it was anything but the most fun way.

- Not sure what Kevan is referring to with “we are here to fix your Nomic and save you from yourselves, no don’t bother voting on that stuff”.  ehird meant it when he said the first third of that; nobody said anything like the second two thirds.  My incendiary post to agora-business stating that “WE, in our infinite wisdom, have decided to INVADE BLOGNOMIC, for the Greater Good of both nomics,” was obviously “in-character posturing”, but I didn’t see much else along those lines.  I don’t think it is arrogant to suggest that an Agoran dynasty would be fun to play.

- I can’t believe you’re starting a metadynasty based on the idea of invasion after rejecting the invasion.  Come on! :p

* although one of them ended with a B Nomic player accidentally personally surrendering to Agora.  That was great.

If the proposal “This time it is a Proposal” has failed, this proposal does nothing.
Create a new sub-rule of Leaders “Rank Hath Its Privilege” with the text:

The Leader of a Faction may VETO the proposals of their Faction’s members.
If a non-Leader player votes DEFERENTIAL, their vote will count the same as the vote of the Leader of the Faction they belong to when the matter is resolved. If a player votes DEFERENTIAL when their Faction has no Leader, their vote will count the same as the Critic’s Vote. If the game has no standing Critic, and their Faction has no Leader, their vote will count as an explicit Vote of abstention.
If a Leader of a Faction votes DEFERENTIAL, their vote will count the same as the Critic’s Vote. If the game has no standing Critic, their vote will count as an explicit Vote of abstention.
The Leader of a Faction may not achieve Victory.

If the term “Critic” in the ruleset is replaced by another term before this CfJ passes, use that term in place of “Critic” where it appears in the altered ruletext.

After some discussion with Amnistar, several bugs were found in the original version of this. Under the original wording, it could be interpreted as meaning that a deferential vote would count twice, once following the Faction Leader, and once following the Emperor, if one were to arise. Also, it does not adress what happens if the Faction Leader votes deferential, and how votes of people that leave factions after voting works. Due to typos, I currently have two proposals pending - feel free to officially propose it.

If the proposal “This time it is a Proposal” has failed, this proposal does nothing.
Create a new sub-rule of Leaders “Rank Hath Its Privilege” with the text:

The Leader of a Faction may VETO the proposals of their Faction’s members.
If a player votes DEFERENTIAL, their vote will count the same as the vote of the Leader of the Faction they belong to when the matter is resolved.
If a Leader of a Faction votes DEFERENTIAL, their vote will count the same as the Critic’s Vote. If the game has no standing Critic, their vote will count as an explicit Vote of abstention
The Leader of a Faction may not achieve Victory.

If the term “Critic’s” in the ruleset is replaced by another term before this CfJ passes, use that term in place of “Critic’s” where it appears in the altered ruletext.

If the Proposal titled “This time it is a Proposal” failed, this Proposal does nothing.
Create a new sub-rule of Leaders “Rank hath its privilege” with the text:

The Leader of a Faction may the proposals of any Member of their Faction.
If a player votes it will be counted the same as their Faction’s Leader’s vote.
The Leader of a Faction may not achieve Victory.

I humbly request deidlement.

If the proposal “Faction War” has failed, this proposal does nothing.
Create a new sub-rule of Leaders “Rank hath its privelage” with the text:

The Leader of a Faction may the proposals of and Member of their Faction.
If a player votes it will mimic the be counted the same as the Leader’s vote for their faction.
The Leader of a Faction may not achieve Victory.

Replace all instances of Artist within the ruleset with Player
Replace all instances of Critic within the ruleset with Emperor

If a majority of EVCs on this proposal contain the phrase ‘Fresh Start’, Start a new Dynasty with no Emperor named the Sixth Metadynasty and repeal all Dynastic Rules.

Create a new dynastic rule “Factions” with the text:

Each player has a Faction which is a string of characters no more than 10 characters long tracked in the GNDT. At any time a player may change their Faction in the GDNT to any string of characters that no more than 10 characters long.  Factions are not case sensitive.

Whenever a player unidles or joins the game, set their faction to Blognomic.

Create a subrule of the rule Factions “Leaders” with the text:

Each player has a Role tracked in the GNDT. A player’s Role can either be Member or Leader.

If a player changes their Faction to a Faction that is currently held by no other active player, that player may change their role to Leader.

If a player changes their Faction to a Faction that is held any other active player, that player’s Role is changed to Member.

A Leader of a Faction may at any time transfer leadership of their Faction to another member of their Faction by changing their Role to Member and the player’s Role to Leader.
Whenever a player unidles or joins the game, set their Role to Member.

In the event that there exists a Faction that has no player with the Role of Leader, any Member of that Faction may change their role to Leader.  If there is only one player in a Faction, that player immediately has their role set to Leader.

Set each active player’s Faction to Blognomic.
Set each active player’s Role to Member.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposal contain the phrase ‘Honor his wishes’, Set Prince Anduril’s role to Leader. 

If there is no Leader of the Blognomic Faction, the enacting Admin will user the GNDT to randomly determine the Leader and adjust that players Role.

Append the following to Rule 1.3

It is the duty of a new Critic to, at the start of a dynasty, ensure that the history of the previous dynasty is properly recorded in the Wiki.

Add a new Dynastic Rule to the Ruleset.  Call it “Connoisseur’s Challenge” and give it the following text:

An Artist is Well-Connected if he has expressed Approval of at least 3 Works of Art which were created in the last week, at least 3 of which have had 3 or more Artists express Approval of them.

Whenever a Work of Art created after noon on October 22nd, 2011 becomes a Masterpiece, if the Artist who created it is Well-Connected, that Artist achieves victory.

Append the following to Rule 1.3

It is the duty of a new Critic to, at the start of a dynasty, ensure that the history of the previous dynasty is properly recorded in the Wiki.

The last Artist who voted for (:FOR:) this Proposal has won this Dinasty and may validly declare victory under rule 1.8.

If the Admin enacting this Proposal is the one who last voted for (:FOR:) it, this Proposal has no effect at all. If an Artist voted many timed for (:FOR:) this Proposal, only the first of such votes shall be counted for the purpose of determining whoever voted last.

Add to rule 1.4 the following:

Artists may not submit proposals that would change the core rules if they have either;

1. Been idle within the last 168 hours
2. Became registered Artists within the last 168 hours

In rule 1.6 “Resolution of Proposals”, after

The oldest pending Proposal

add

(and such proposals may be failed by any Admin even if they are not the oldest)

Any time witihin 24 hours of the enactment of this Proposal, the last Artist who voted for (:FOR:) it may validly declare victory under rule 1.8.

Immediately idle each Artist who both:
  1) did not vote on this Proposal, and
  2) was not registered as an Artist before UTC 23:00 15 October 2011.

I request to be de-Idled.

Replace all instances of Artist within the ruleset with Player
Replace all instances of Critic within the ruleset with Emperor
Create a new dynastic rule “Factions” with the text:

Each player has a Faction which is a string of characters no more than 10 letters long tracked in the GDNT. At any time a player may change their Faction in the GDNT to any string of characters that no more than 10 characters long. 
Whenever a player unidles or joins the game, set their faction to Blognomic.

Create a subrule of the rule Factions “Leaders” with the text:

Each player has a Role tracked in the GDNT. A player’s Role can either be Member of Leader.

If a player changes their Faction to a Faction that is currently held by no other active player, that player may change their role to Leader. 

If a player changes their Faction to a Faction that is held any other active player, that player’s Role is changed to Member.

A Leader of a Faction may at any time transfer leadership of their Faction to another member of their Faction by changing their Role to Member and the player’s Role to Leader.
Whenever a player unidles or joins the game, set their Role to Member.

Set each active player’s Faction to Blognomic.
Set each active player’s Role to Member.

If a majority of all counted votes contain the phrase ‘We want an emperor’, Set Prince Anduril’s role to Leader.

If a majority of all counted votes contain the phrase ‘Fresh Start’, Repeal all Dynastic Rules.

Change the section of the first paragraph of Rule 1.2 that reads “announcing their arrival” to instead read “making clear their wish to be an Artist”. If the term “Artist” in the ruleset is replaced by another term before this CfJ passes, use that term in place of “Artist” where it appears in the altered ruletext.

Retroactively alter every action in BlogNomic history since the word “announcing” first appeared in Rule 1.2 to have happened as if the rule read this way at the time.

Immediately idle each Artist who both:
  1) did not vote on this Proposal, and
  2) became a non-Idle Artist later than UTC 23:00 19 October 2011.

I do not have dictatorship powers over the nomic, even though someone is sorely needed to sort out this mess, and I don’t really trust anyone else here to do it. (Well, perhaps there are a few people, but who’d do it as well as me?) This needs urgent attention.

Create a new core rule, “ais523 Is In Charge”:

ais523 is in Charge. ais523 may make a post to the BlogNomic blog (at
http://blognomic.org), citing this rule as empowering, making any change
to rules and gamestate. This rule may not be repealed and neither the
text nor the title of this rule may be changed in any way, except as
permitted by this rule. This rule takes precedence over all other rules;
if any other rule should say to the contrary, that rule is repealed.

Immediately idle every Artist whose final vote in the Call for Judgment: CFJ: Attn: CotC was .

The against vote from rebelyellow is arguably invalid (dispute about registration validity), and coppro is listed as having not voted, which is blatantly untrue; the tally and the outcome are different, and the CfJ has not yet reached quorum.

Please undo.

I announce my arrival;I wish to become a player.

add me as a player please

For everyone trying to count votes: note that an admin cannot register a human as an Artist unless they make a post announcing their arrival.

If their arrival was announced in some other way, such as making a vote, it thus means that it was not their post announcing their arrival (unless it’s as explicit as “I have arrived”, which would announce it again). Thus, it is illegal to add such humans as Artists per 1.2. (This may be a bug in 1.2.)

please and thank you

I unidle. Quorom reaches 22.

Change the following rule under ‘Gamestate Tracking’ from:

A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

Artists may not create a post, nor edit a post, such that that post is in more than one of the following categories: Call for Judgment, Proposal, Declaration of Victory, Ascension Address.

Fail all Proposals which are pending at the time of this Call for Judgement being posted. If any proposals are enacted between the time of this Call for Judgement being posted and the time of this Call for Judgement being enacted, all amendments these proposals make to the ruleset must be reverted. Fail all Proposals which are posted between the time of this Call for Judgement being posted and its enactment.

In the rule ‘Calls for Judgement’, add the following after “by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgment” category”:

unless the Artist already has 2 Calls For Judgement pending, or has already made 3 Calls For Judgement that day

If the Wiki page “The Faux Pas” exists, make it blank.

Throwing this out here as a concept. Let me know if there are any obvious errors and ill propose it tonight after work.

Repeal all Dynastic Rules.

Create a new dynastic rule “Factions” with the text:

Each player has a trait Faction which is tracked in the GDNT. At any time a player may change their Faction in the GDNT to any string of characters that is less than 10 characters long.  A player is considered a member of that Faction.

Create a subrule of the rule Factions “Leaders” with the text:

Each player has a trait Leader which is is tracked in the GDNT and is either Yes or No.  If a player changes their faction to a faction that is currently held by no other player, that player may change their Leader to Yes, that player is considered the leader of their Faction.

A leader of a Faction may at any time transfer leadership of their Faction to another member of ther Faction by changing their Leader to no and that player’s Leader to yes.

If a player changes their Faction to match that of another player, their Leadership is set to No.

Set each active player’s Faction to Blognomic.
Set each active plater’s Leader to No.

Yes, I’m here. What’s the matter?

Unidling myself. Quorum remains at 21.—Chronos

It looks like the Agoran invasion has stalled; let’s just move on with reasonable gameplay.

For each number in the rules, replace it with the string “A Suffusion of Yellow”.

Hi, I am Schrodinger’s Cat, and I request to become a player here. In case you are wondering, I have already been proven to have been observed to be living.

Please idle me.

The rather exciting metagame, subgame or whatever is going on at the moment looks awesome but I have nowhere near enough time to play something in that style. I’ll keep an eye on the place and hopefully return in a couple of months once the madness is over!

It feels good to come back and see, well, everyone from Blognomic past, present, and [well, probably not] future. =D

At 41 Artists, are we not at a Blognomic record?

All proposals are currently illegal. However, there is currently a pending CfJ that would retroactively make several of them legal. In light of this, all the illegal proposals affected by it are currently open. This is actually Bucky’s doing, but I agree with it. Should the CfJ fail, all illegal proposals will be marked illegal and closed. No harm done. Should the CfJ pass, leaving them open in the interim will mean that we will not have lost valuable voting and discussion time that will retroactively have been legal.

That said, I feel it would be a good idea to refrain from making further proposals until the matter is settled, as it will only further complicate the gamestate.

Does anyone disagree with this reasoning?

I unidle

Amend Rule 1.7 (Calls for Judgment) by replacing “the CfJ may be enacted” with “the CfJ may once be enacted”.

Bucky’s re-enacting the old CfJ was illegal, and it has been undone. Darth’s CfJ to make it legal retroactively is ugly, but perfectly within the rules of BlogNomic. This is not a game of Calvinball, and suggesting otherwise is offensive. We’re all nomickers here, and we can fight this battle in a civil manner.

So I’m finally getting ready to actually go to bed, and decide to check one last time on a controversy I fear will destroy the nomic I have just started playing, when I see that Bucky has performed perhaps the greatest move I personally have ever seen in a nomic. However, the isue which in some ways inspired the controversy remains unsolved. Rule 3.2 still has the difficult language regarding categorization of official posts. Though Works of Art are no longer in play, this issue could easily come up again - I could see a similar argument being made concerning Faction posts.

After some discussion with more experienced players, I have concluded that we are attempting to solve the 3.2 conflict from entirely the wrong end. Banning official posts from being in any other official category not only generates bugs, but prohibits all sorts of interesting and good ideas. It is not only impractical, but unwise to universally prevent posts from being in multiple categories. While scams may be possible using certain combinations, dangerous combinations should be banned specifically. Do we really want to prevent all rules which classify official posts?

One concern that was brought up was a potential scam involving posts that were simultaneously DoVs and CfJs, and perhaps Proposals as well. Thus, remove the complete prohibition on categorization of official posts by changing, in rule 3.2,

A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, and Declaration of Victory.

Cause Bucky’s second enactment of the CfJ “Compromise mark 4: Again.” to retroactively have been valid.

In Rule 1.7, change the text

Unfailed CfJs continue

to

CfJs that are neither enacted nor failed continue

So I’m finally getting ready to actually go to bed, and decide to check one last time on a controversy I fear will destroy the nomic I have just started playing, when I see that Bucky has performed perhaps the greatest move I personally have ever seen in a nomic. However, the isue which in some ways inspired the controversy remains unsolved. Rule 3.2 still has the difficult language regarding categorization of official posts. Though Works of Art are no longer in play, this issue could easily come up again - I could see a similar argument being made concerning Faction posts.

After some discussion with more experienced players, I have concluded that we are attempting to solve the 3.2 conflict from entirely the wrong end. Banning official posts from being in any other official category not only generates bugs, but prohibits all sorts of interesting and good ideas. It is not only impractical, but unwise to universally prevent posts from being in multiple categories. While scams may be possible using certain combinations, dangerous combinations should be banned specifically. Do we really want to prevent all rules which classify official posts?

One concern that was brought up was a potential scam involving posts that were simultaneously DoVs and CfJs, and perhaps Proposals as well. Thus, remove the complete prohibition on categorization of official posts by changing, in rule 3.2,

A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Justice, and Declaration of Victory.

If the Wiki pages “Faction BLO Ruleset II”, “Faction GNO Ruleset II”, and/or “Faction MIC Ruleset II” exist, delete all content in them.

Bucky’s enactment of the CFJ at http://blognomic.com/archive/compromise_mark_4_again/ was illegal due to the fact that the CFJ had no valid votes. Per rule 1.5

If an Artist leaves the game or goes Idle, their Vote is no longer valid.

There is no provision to make that vote valid again. Since every player who voted on that CFJ has been idle since then, the enactment was illegal.

Blank the following wiki pages.

Faction BLO Ruleset
Faction GNO Ruleset
Faction MIC Ruleset

In Rule 1.7, change the text

Unfailed CfJs continue

to

CfJs that are neither enacted nor failed continue

In the Rule entitled “”, change the text

Unfailed CfJs continue

to

CfJs that are neither enacted nor failed continue

Add a dynastic rule called ‘Factions’:

There exist three Factions called BLO, GNO and MIC, respectively. For each one of these factions, there exists a Ruleset and a Gamestate to which those rules apply. Each faction’s Ruleset is tracked on a page called “Faction [Faction] Ruleset II”, with [Faction] replaced with the Faction’s name. Every rule in Sections 1 and 3 are considered implicit in each Faction’s Ruleset with “Blognomic” replaced with the name of that Faction throughout, even if a Faction’s rule states otherwise. All Citizens of every Faction must obey all rules in Section 2 of the Blognomic Ruleset. Rules existing only in a Faction’s Ruleset have no effect outside that Faction’s Gamestate and Ruleset.

Add a dynastic rule called “Membership”:

Each Citizen may belong to at most one Faction (also known as being member of that Faction). This shall be tracked in a GNDT column named Faction. As a weekly action, a Citizen may change their Faction to any one of the three valid Factions. A Citizen is considered to be idle within each Faction that e doesn’t belong to. If a Citizen is ever un-Idle in a Faction of which e is not a member, e immediately becomes Idle within that Faction.

Whenever a Citizen makes an official post with the text “[Faction]” at the beginning of its subject (Where Faction is replaced by the Faction that the poster is a member of), then that post shall be known as a Faction Post and is considered to be made only within the context of the Ruleset and Gamestate for that Citizen’s Faction. Otherwise, it is considered to be made within the Ruleset and Gamestate of Blognomic as a whole.

Faction Posts cannot be made if the Citizen’s Faction has less than three Players (and if they are made, they shall be marked as invalid).

Due to circumstances spiralling rapidly out of control, I have taken the liberty of enacting the CfJ “Compromise mark 4: Again.”  48 hours have passed since it was posted, and it has not been failed, and it has more FOR than AGAINST votes; it also has the useful property of stopping the current invasion cold until the loophole is fixed.

Have a nice day.

I would like to join in the game.

Fail all Pending CfJs.

Replace Artist with ‘Dinosaur’ and ‘Critic’ with ‘Tyrannosaurus Rex’ throughout the ruleset. Repeal all dynastic rules. Start a new dynasty with Amnistar as its Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Fail this CfJ.

Fail all pending CfJs.

If this CfJ passes immediately fail all pending CfJs, Proposals and DoVs.

Add a new dynastic rule “Amnistar’s Victory” with the text “Amnistar has achieved Victory.”

BlogNomicScript is doing this annoying thing where the new comment count says NaN instead of a number. Does anyone have any idea why?

malkovich malkovich malkovich. (unidle me, please.)

As the primary instigator of this invasion, I wanted to write a long post, but I’m tired and by the time I get untired in the morning, who knows where this will have progressed to?  So I’ll just be short:

The invasion is meant in good faith, and meant to be fun.  Defense and taking sides is expected: indeed, it wouldn’t be any fun without that; this could have been done so much more easily if we had agreed to be online at the same time and quickly brought a proposal up to quorum (not that that would have been easy), but I’m glad it ended up this way.  But if the dust settles and we “win”, I do hope you will take it in stride and play the new dynasty—a scamming dynasty based on an exaggerated version of Agora.  It will be unlike any BlogNomic dynasty in recent memory, and I think it has the potential to be awesome, especially with a bunch of new players from Agora to add to the activity level.

After all, it’s only appropriate to introduce a scamming dynasty with a scam—not just any scam, but one that’s been so often theorized about in so many nomics, attempted twice by Agora, yet never successfully pulled off in any game I’ve seen.  Good luck blocking it! :)

Edit: Not that we’re all in agreement.  From another post:

coppro:
10-21-2011 04:21:05 UTC
I’m not entirely sure if I want a scam-based dynasty. I kind of envision it more as a dynasty where we try to import Agoran concepts in BlogNomic fashion

I wonder how it will end up.

add me as a player please

Christ.

I arrive.

I unidle as well.

I am requesting to unidle… again…

If the rule “Emergency Law” exists and has more opening brackets than closing brackets, add a closing bracket after the first closing quotation mark.

If the rule “Emergency Law” exists, add “as they were at 21 OCT 2011 00:07:07 UTC” after (the nomic described at http://www.agoranomic.org/).

I, too, am interested in your thing, and would like to join.

I would like join blognomic.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO INFORM YOU THAT I AM INTERESTED IN YOUR THING AND WOULD LIKE TO BE A PLAYA OF YOUR THING

Create a core rule, Emergency Law:

Any CfJ or Proposal (referred to in this rule as “the Post” which meets the following conditions is invalid:
* The Post is or was posted between 19 OCT 2011 21:24:37 UTC and 03 NOV 2011 21:24:37 UTC.
* The Post is or was posted by a player who has, according to the rules of Agora (the nomic described at http://www.agoranomic.org/), been an active player of that nomic at any point since 19 AUG 2011 21:24:37 UTC.

Any Enacted CfJ or Proposal which meets the two conditions described above is considered to have never been valid.

I also unidle.

I unidle; quorum’s unchanged at 12.

I’m back as well.

I’m back in the game.

Add a new core rule titled “Soviet Brendon” with the rule text

Soviet Brendon can never become idle. This rule cannot be repealed by any core rule or dynastic rule action.

Send spam emails to all email addresses listed on http://www.nomictools.com/agora/registrar/text.

Repeal ALL rules

Btw, 10 CfJ :P

A large number of people have recently joined/unidled in BlogNomic, whose opinions have not been recently respected. The ruleset and gamestate are uncertain due to rules issues and attempted scams, and many people think that the dynasty is flagging and unlikely to recover. Finally, Agora’s ruleset requires attempts to be made to cause it to become a player in BlogNomic. All this requires urgent attention. Therefore:

• Repeal all dynastic rules.
• Fail all other open CFJs.
• Change the core rules and glossary to the version shown at http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ruleset&oldid=14227, except that

  A Proposal, Call for Judgment, or Declaration of Victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

  is replaced with

  Artists may not create a post, nor edit a post, such that that post is in more than one of the following categories: {Call for Judgment, Proposal, Declaration of Victory, Ascension Address}.

• Change the name of the Artist currently known on BlogNomic as “Agora Nomic” to “Tiger”, to avoid confusion.
• Replace “Artist” with “Player” and “Critic” with “Speaker” in every rule.
• Create a new dynastic rule, “Foreign Relations”:

  In addition to humans, nomics can also be Players, although a nomic cannot become an Players except via the enactment of a rule declaring them as one, and providing them with a method to act. Agora, the nomic that is most commonly referred to as Agora on the mailing lists described at http://agoranomic.org, is a Player. It cannot be idled due to inactivity. If a proposal passes in Agora that specifies that Agora posts a blog post or comment to BlogNomic, or if Agora posts a blog post or comment to BlogNomic via any other mechanism specified by Agora’s ruleset, then any Player who is also a player of Agora may make such blog posts or comments to BlogNomic, marking them as posted by Agora, and they will count as being posted by Agora not by that player. (Players may not claim blog posts or comments to have been posted by Agora if they have not been.)

• Begin a new dynasty with Agora as the Speaker.

(Done correctly this time, I hope.  My bad for not reading the FAQs first.)

Amend Rule 3.1 by inserting this text immediately after the definition of “Can”:

Category
  A type of Official Post defined or mentioned by the rules as being a “category”.

and by replacing the definition of “Story Post” with this text:

A Story Post is an Official Post that does not belong to any category.

Amend Rule 3.2 by replacing all text in the first paragraph after “Posts following the format specified by a rule are considered official posts.” with this text:

An official post cannot simultaneously belong to more than one category unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

I’m not entirely sure what’s going on, but we have 7 CfJs (not counting this one) pending, and no proposals. Clearly some sort of crisis is happening; I’d make this a proposal but I think if we could make proposals some of the CfJs would be proposals.

I doubt any of us want Christmas 2008 to happen all over again, so:
Repeal all dynastic rules. Replace “Critic” with “Emperor” and “Artist” with “Player” throughout the Ruleset. Add a subrule to Rule 1.8 titled “Metadynasties” reading as follows:

Some Dynasties (called Metadynasties) have no Emperor and are named according to the number of Metadynasties of BlogNomic (eg. First Metadynasty). Metadynasties may only be started by a successful Proposal, CfJ, or as allowed by another rule.

When a Metadynasty begins, the previous Dynasty ends and all Dynastic rules are repealed. The theme (and appropriate substitution of keywords) may be chosen by any method deemed necessary.

Because there is no Emperor, DEFERENTIAL votes are counted as explicit votes of abstention and no one may VETO a Proposal.

Start a Metadynasty.

I’m too busy to play right now. I go idle again.

If you’re wondering how this effects quorum, check the sidebar.

I hereby announce my arrival and intent to become a player of Blognomic.

Amend the second paragraph of rule 1.7

All Artists may cast Votes on that CfJ to indicate agreement or disagreement with the position taken in that CfJ. Unfailed CfJs continue until they reach a Quorum of FOR Votes, a Quorum of AGAINST Votes, or until 48 hours have passed since they were posted. 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. Otherwise, the CfJ fails. A Failed CfJ has no further effect.

to read

All Artists may cast Votes on that CfJ to indicate agreement or disagreement with the position taken in that CfJ. Unresolved CFfJs cannot be resolved if there is an older unresolved CfJ and unresolved CfJs continue until they reach a Quorum of FOR Votes, a Quorum of AGAINST Votes, or until 48 hours have passed since they were posted. 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. Otherwise, the CfJ fails. A Failed CfJ has no further effect.

Amend Rule 3.1 by inserting this text immediately after the definition of “Can”:

Category
  A type of Official Post defined or mentioned by the rules as being a “category”.

and by replacing the definition of “Story Post” with this text:

A Story Post is an Official Post that does not belong to any category.

Amend Rule 3.2 by replacing all text in the first paragraph after “Posts following the format specified by a rule are considered official posts.” with this text:

An official post cannot simultaneously belong to more than one category unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

I wish to be de-idled. I’m no longer the official Ambassador of Agora Nomic, but I can’t be bothered to change my screen name unless Agora gets mad at me.

If they exist remove all dynastic rules of the form 2.x where x is either even or prime or both.

Clear the GNDT

Blognomic looks like it’s getting excited. I hereby announce my arrival and my intention to become a player.

My formal intent is to become a player here:  Hi!  I arrive.

I hereby announce my arrival.

I would like to be unidled, please.

Be gentle, its my second time.

After some discussion with more experienced players, I have concluded that we are attempting to solve the 2.1 - 3.2 conflict from entirely the wrong end. Banning official posts from being in any other official category not only generates bugs, but prohibits all sorts of interesting and good ideas. It is not only impractical, but unwise to universally prevent posts from being in multiple categories. While scams may be possible using certain combinations, dangerous combinations should be banned specifically. Do we really want to prevent all rules which classify official posts?

One concern that was brought up was a potential scam involving posts that were simultaneously DoVs and CfJs, and perhaps Proposals as well. Thus, remove the complete prohibition on categorization of official posts by changing, in rule 3.2,

A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Justice, and Declaration of Victory.

The concern was also raised, in the current ruleset, that Critiques could then be made secretly - however, this is not prevented by the current prohibition. Thus, require Critiques to be labeled as such by changing, in rule 2.4

An Artist may post a Critique of another Artist’s non-Critique Work of Art

to

An Artist may post a Critique of another Artist’s non-Critique Work of Art by posting an entry in the “Critique” category.

Personally, I do not see a problem with allowing Critiques to also be Proposals or CfJs, though that may be better dealt with at a later time.

If the CfJ “Manual Ratification” passes after this, make the same change to Rule 2.4 and replace, in Rule 3.2, “A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules” instead of “A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules” in the renewed ruleset.

Remove the following entry from The Faux Pas:

Being a post in the “Proposal” (including “Idle”), “Call for Judgment”, or “Declaration of Victory” categories, except if it was authored by the Artist formerly known as CallForJudgement (that is to say, authored by the Artist currently known as ais523); such posts are known as “Treacherous” posts.

Amend Rule 2.8 by appending:

If an entry in the Faux Pas makes it effectively impossible for any particular player to create non-erroneous Works of Art, that player can remove the entry from the list.

I would like to be unidled, please. =D

Be gentle, its my first time.

After some discussion with more experienced players, I have concluded that we are attempting to solve the 2.1 - 3.2 conflict from entirely the wrong end. Banning official posts from being in any other official category not only generates bugs, but prohibits all sorts of interesting and good ideas. It is not only impractical, but unwise to universally prevent posts from being in multiple categories. While scams may be possible using certain combinations, dangerous combinations should be banned specifically. Do we really want to prevent all rules which classify official posts?

One concern that was brought up was a potential scam involving posts that were simultaneously DoVs and CfJs, and perhaps Proposals as well. Thus, remove the complete prohibition on categorization of official posts by changing, in rule 3.2,

A proposal, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Justice, and Declaration of Victory.

The concern was also raised, in the current ruleset, that Critiques could then be made secretly - however, this is not prevented by the current prohibition. Thus, require Critiques to be labeled as such by changing, in rule 2.4

An Artist may post a Critique of another Artist’s non-Critique Work of Art

to

An Artist may post a Critique of another Artist’s non-Critique Work of Art by posting an entry with the phrase “A Critique of [Artist]‘s Work” in the title, where [Artist] is the name of the Artist who’s work is being Critiqued. A Critique may not also be a Proposal, Call for Judgement, or Declaration of Victory.

Personally, I do not see a problem with allowing Critiques to also be Proposals or CfJs, though that may be better dealt with at a later time.

Repeal dynastic rules 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8.

Clear the GNDT

It occurs to me that we still might have controversy regarding the state of the game even after several possibly-necessary attempts to make the various viewpoints converge on the legality of making CfJs.  I therefore suggest we directly set the gamestate by CfJ to remove any trace of ambiguity.

Change the Ruleset, with the exception of the rule named “Gamestate Tracking”, to match what the Ruleset wiki page contained at revision 14227 (http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ruleset&oldid=14227).  Change the Zeitgeist, Fauz Pas, and Syles to match what their corresponding wiki pages contained at the time this CfJ was created.

If the CfJ “Drawing the Line Somewhere” passed, replace “Whenever an Artist posts an entry, that entry is considered a Work of Art.” in rule 2.1 with:

Whenever an Artist posts a blog entry which is not a Proposal, Call for Judgment, Declaration of Victory or Ascension Address, that entry is considered a Work of Art.

Set the GNDT’s columns as follows:
Bucky has 2 acclaim, comex and Kevan have 1 acclaim, everyone else has 0 acclaim.  Set everyone’s Movement to whatever its current value is according to the GNDT as long as such a value is legal according to the rule “Movements”, or to no movement otherwise.  The Founder of each Movement mentioned in the GNDT log before this CfJ passes is considered to be the first Artist to have had that Movement in their Movement field according to the GNDT log.

The issue remains that we cannot make Proposals, DoVs or Ascension Addresses, because they would be considered Works of Art, and would be multiple types of Official Post (and thus illegal) as a result. In addition, every game action taken since the first Proposal has had no effect, because none of the subsequent Proposals were legal. I think this needs urgent attention.

To resolve this, in the rule “Works of Art”, replace “Whenever an Artist posts an entry, that entry is considered a Work of Art.” with:-

Whenever an Artist posts a blog entry which is not a Proposal, Call for Judgment, Declaration of Victory or Ascension Address, that entry is considered a Work of Art.

And update the gamestate such that it is in the state it would have been had the above replacement been made immediately after the “Works of Art” rule was enacted.

Lilomar idles out after eleven days of inactivity. Quorum drops to 7.

Blah blah quorum blah blah blah.

The issue: this CfJ is also a Work of Art. Therefore, it appears to violate rule 3.2 (under an interpretation of the rules that admittedly isn’t shared by all Artists). The same holds for all proposals and CfJs (and one DoV) since the first proposal of the dynasty passed.

Why this aspect of the game needs urgent attention: I imagine that most Artists are getting bored not being able to make proposals or CfJs.

Why this isn’t a copy of ais523’s Call for Judgment: I’ve got 3 main problems with the CfJ and the suggestion to post a copy of it:

1) We’re still not agreed that his CfJ is legal (since it’s a Work of Art), so if I post a copy and both ‘pass’ we’re still not agreed on a single gamestate.
2) There’s no real reason that ais523 should be the one to formulate the fix. Even though I don’t really get a ‘my way or the highway’ vibe from his post, that is essentially what is happening (again, even if that wasn’t necessarily the intention). This single CfJ should be enough to resolve the issue; it is only illegal if (a) Works of Art aren’t a type of Official post (since otherwise rule 2.8 doesn’t exist), (b) the Faux Pas wiki page has the power to specify types of Official Posts and (c) the specification it provides somehow also applies to posts that aren’t Works of Art. I strongly dispute the second and third claims, and am still not sure about the first.
3) I dislike EVC clauses in general and adding a victory clause to a critical rule fix is particularly irksome.

Therefore, I feel most comfortable providing a simple, temporary fix that allows you all to post CfJs that fix the rules and sort out the gamestate (and hand ais523 the victory if you’re so inclined) and decide between them.

The measures that shall be taken to resolve the issue:

If this call for judgment legally passed, revert its effects so that we agree on a single gamestate (as far as the core rules are concerned, anyway). If it has not been resolved yet, fail it.

In “Gamestate Tracking” in the Appendix, change

A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

A proposal or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

In rule 1.7 “Calls for Judgment”, immediately after

by posting an entry in the “Call for Judgment” category.

add

Such posts are always Calls for Judgment regardless of any dynastic rule.

In rule 3.2 “Gamestate Tracking”, change

A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.

to

Posts in the “Proposal”, “Call for Judgment” or “Declaration of Victory” categories are always proposals, calls for judgment, or declarations of victory respectively (unless they were posted illegally), and not any other sort of official post, unless a dynastic rule specifically overrides this. Players may not cause posts to simultaneously be in two or more of these categories.

If a number of EVCs on this CFJ equal to or greater than a quorum of Artists contain the phrase “ais523 deserves a win”, the Artist known as ais523 achieves victory.

Those of you with nothing to say who don’t want to be idled automatically a week after the DoV should comment on this thread, preferably using an Arrow icon.

I’m off to Malta for a week, and will be back a week on Monday. Hopefully by then the ruleset lockup will be navigated.

Quorum drops to 7.

Greetings and salutations! I have just joined the nomic, and am excited to get started playing again after around a year without finding a good group. I see that there is a bit of a debate going on which might delay regular play - I am, however, more than willing to be patient and reasonable, for the time being ;), and look forward to getting into the game.

(since the other one has been locked, and the CfJ is a separate topic)

Rule 3.2:

A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules

Given the phrasing involved - it doesn’t apply to posts that aren’t proposals, CfJs or DoVs - I interpret this as “If another rule tries to make a post that is a proposal etc. also another type of official post, it fails to do so unless overruled by a Dynastic Rule”.  As a glossary rule, the bias in this statement overrules dynastic rules that don’t explicitly overrule it.

Therefore, all Proposals since the start of the dynasty are not actually Works of Art.  Remove all Acclaim resulting from exhibiting and critiquing Works of Art that are proposals - 2 from Bucky, and 1 from Kevan.  Also, since this supplied 1 of the Acclaim that ais523 used to create a Faux Pas error, remove that error from the Faux Pas document and refund 2 Acclaim to ais523.

This CfJ also indirectly contests the alleged illegality of making CfJs for a similar reason, and upholds its own legality.

So you better start smiling, because I’m back! Could an admin unidle me? thanks!

At this point, nobody but me can legally submit proposals, CFJs, or DoVs. This is forced by a combination of rules (one of which is dynastic), so I can effectively hold the entire nomic hostage until I win (at which point I can repeal the rule via Ascension Address, and we can continue play).

Rule 1.4 contains “Any Artist may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes (unless the Artist already has 2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day).”. In other words, posts in the Proposal category are Proposals (a type of Official Post). There are similar rules to define CFJs and DoVs; all these rules are core rules.

Rule 2.8 contains “The Faux Pas is a list of grave stylistic errors tracked on the Wiki page “The Faux Pas”. If a Work of Art commits any of the errors on the Faux Pas, it may not be Exhibited or Printed.”. In other words, posts fitting defined criteria (based on the Faux Pas entry I just added, being a proposal/CFJ/DoV submitted by anyone but me) are “following the format specified by a rule” (by reference).

Rule 3.2 contains “Proposals, Calls for Judgment, and other official posts, as well as specific gamestate information, shall be tracked by the BlogNomic blog at http://blognomic.com. Any Artist may post (http://blognomic.com/update/index.php?C=publish) to the blog at any time, but may only make official posts to the blog when the Ruleset allows it. Posts following the format specified by a rule are considered official posts. A proposal, call for judgment, or declaration of victory cannot simultaneously be any other type of official post unless otherwise specified by dynastic rules.”. The most notable effect of this is that any proposal, CFJ, or DoV authored by anyone other than me is two sorts of official post (a Proposal/CFJ/DoV, and also a Faux Pas/“Treacherous” post). But that’s against the rules, so it can’t happen.

The precedence rules in rule 3.3.6 state Appendix > Dynastic > Core for resolving precedences. Thus, 3.3.6 wins in that a post in the “Proposals” category authored by a player other than me, for instance, can only be one sort of official post. Then 2.8 wins out against 1.4; the post is a faux pas, not a proposal. In other words, the precedence rules have it that nobody can submit proposals.

This situation is a win for me, as I can choose an arbitrary outcome to the situation; nobody else can do anything to resolve it. Once this DoV is adopted, I’ll submit a CfJ to amend rule 3.2 to try to avoid the problem in future; 2.8 will anyway be removed by the Ascension Address (I don’t plan to keep it cross-dynasty). Thus, voting for a win for me now will fix the situation. On the other hand, if you vote down the DoV, you won’t be able to do anything at all to change the ruleset, nor to win, without my permission, and I’ll easily win the dynasty as a result.

There are no images in this post, as a similar argument could be made about the Zeitgeist as about the Faux Pas rule.

Is it working for other people, or down for everyone? Playing BlogNomic is quite hard without it; I remember I almost gave up on BlogNomic before it was invented because it was so hard to track everything going on, but the script + an RSS feed reader has served me well for a while.

To the rule “Works of Art”, add:-

If a Work of Art meets any Criteria of the Zeitgeist, then that Work of Art is Fashionable, otherwise it is Outre. If any Artists have expressed Approval of a Work of Art, then that Work of Art is Professional, otherwise it is Amateur.

Add a subrule to the rule “Zeitgeist”, called “Trendwatching”:-

As a weekly Action, an Artist may add a new Criteria to the Zeitgeist, with the following restrictions:-

• Its detailed description is such that at least two Fashionable, Professional Works of Art which are no more than seven days old qualify for the Criteria.
• Its detailed description is also such that at least two Fashionable, Professional Works of Art which are no more than seven days old do not qualify for the Criteria.
• It provides no more than 1 Acclaim as a reward.

Blooming C

Ienpw III idles out after ten days of inactivity. Quorum drops to seven.

Image did not live up to expectations.  Background is #F7EDE2, but image was #F7EDE3.  Artist said there would be interesting compression artifacts but there was only blue.  2 pixel height difference was not visible but made for tight fit.  Packaging was appalling: 218% extra filesize over PNG caused late delivery.

F——- WOULD NOT VIEW AGAIN.  DO NOT RECOMMEND DOING BUSINESS WITH THIS ARTIST.

Can someone please add “Styles” and “The Faux Pas” to the sidebar?

Rule 2.7 requires Movements to consist of words, and “posterism” is not a word.  Therefore, if Bucky’s Movement field in the GNDT is still “Demotivational Posterism”, set it to blank.

If any Artists have Movements of more than 26 characters in length, those Artists revert to having no Movement.

After the second sentence of Rule 2.7 (Movements), add:-

A Movement may not be longer than twenty-six characters.

Remove the following phrase from the Ruleset wherever it appears:

If an Artist has not made a new proposal for five or more days then, provided that no Artist has done so in the preceding 3 days, any other Artist may reduce their Acclaim by 5, to a minimum of zero.

If the rule “Critical Acclaim” contains a duplicated paragraph, delete one of the copies.

Create a new Dynastic Rule titled “The Faux Pas”:

The Faux Pas is a list of grave stylistic errors tracked on the Wiki page “The Faux Pas”.  If a Work of Art commits any of the errors on the Faux Pas, it may not be Exhibited or Printed.

Any Artist may spend 3 Acclaim to add a new error to the Faux Pas.

Replace “Publish” with “Print” and “Publishes” with “Prints”, throughout the Dynastic Rules.

If either Proposal: A Wider Context or Proposal: Second Paradigm Lucky failed, this proposal does nothing.

Add the following as a sub-rule to the rule called “Everyone’s a Critic” entitled Professional Criticism:

Journalism is a Movement than an Artist can have, subject to the terms set out in the rule entitled “Movements”. An Artist may not change their Movement to Journalism if their Movement has been Journalism at any previous time. An Artist whose Movement is Journalism may also be referred to as a Journalist.

A Journalist may not exhibit a Work of Art.

When a Journalist Publishes a Critique, they may gain one Acclaim for every Artist that has expressed Approval of it.

In the rule “Everyone’s a Critic”, change the text

the Artist who posted the Critique may Publish it (if they have not already done so)

to

any Artist may Publish it (if no Artist has already done so)

Reword the rule “Everyone’s a Critic” to:-

An Artist may post a Critique of another Artist’s non-Critique Work of Art. In the Critique, he or she may delve into subtle details of the artwork, speculate on the Artist’s hidden artistic goals, and choose to compare the Artist to some of his or her contemporaries.

Any Artist named in the first, third or fifth paragraph of a Critique is considered Praised by that Critique, unless the named Artist is the Artist who posted the Critique. Any Artist named in the second, fourth or sixth paragraph of a Critique is considered Scorned by that Critique. If an Artist is both Praised and Scorned in the same Critique, they are considered Scorned by that Critique and not Praised by it.

If three or more Artists have expressed Approval of the Critique, and if the Critique was posted not more than one week ago, then the Artist who posted the Critique may Publish it (if they have not already done so) by posting a comment on the Critique to that effect. Upon doing so, all Artists Praised by the Critique gain 1 Acclaim, and all Artists Scorned by the Critique lose 1 Acclaim.

Critiques may not be Exhibited.

If “How (not) To Gain Acclaim At Someone Else’s Expense” failed, remove the final sentence from “Everyone’s a Critic”.

If the proposal “Second Paradigm Lucky” fails, this proposal does nothing.

Add the following text to the end of the second paragraph of the rule ‘Movements’:

This Artist is known as the Founder. If an Artist has Founded the Movement, then in that Artist’s Movement field in the GNDT, the Movement name should be followed by an ‘(F)’. When any Artist within a particular Movement Exhibits a Work of Art the following occurs for all other Artists within that Movement (in this order):

1. The Founder of that Artist’s Movement gains 1 Acclaim, as long as the Founder is not the Artist who is Exhibiting.
2. Every other Artist within that Movement may Approve any Work of Art they have posted in the last 7 days, as long as that Work of Art can still be commented on.

No artist may gain Acclaim or Approval in either these 2 ways as a result of Exhibiting their own Work of Art.

Please see here for the original proposal and explanatory note.

Add the following paragraph to the rule ‘Masterpieces’:

All Artists have a score, tracked in the GNDT, entitled Masterpieces. For each Masterpiece Work of Art an artist Exhibits, they add 1 Masterpiece to their score. An artist who has a Masterpiece score higher than every other Artist is declared a Genius. This is tracked in the GNDT with a ‘G’ by that Artist’s Masterpiece score. If the Genius has a higher Acclaim than every other Artist for 7 consecutive days, during which they continually remained the Genius, that Artist achieves victory.

Add the following paragraph to the rule ‘Masterpieces’:

All Artists have a score, tracked in the GNDT, entitled Masterpieces. For each Masterpiece Work of Art an artist Exhibits, they add 1 Masterpiece to their score. An artist who has a Masterpiece score higher than every other Artist is declared a Genius. This is tracked in the GNDT with a ‘G’ by that Artist’s Masterpiece score. If the Genius has a higher Acclaim than every other Artist for 3 consecutive days, during which they continually remained the Genius, that Artist achieves victory.

In the rule “Critical Acclaim”, change

No artist may gain more than 5 Acclaim per day.

to

No artist may gain more than 30 Acclaim per week.

Add a new Rule titled “Movements” as follows:

Each player may have a Movement, tracked in the GNDT. A Movement is either a single word ending with “ism” or two words the second of which ends with “ism”. A player with no Movement is represented by leaving the GNDT field blank.

As a Daily Action an Artist may join a Movement by updating the GNDT field to show their new Movement. If this is the first time that particular Movement has been joined by any Artist then the Artist is said to have Founded the Movement.

Dynastic Rules may contain clauses which pertain only to Artists belonging to particular Movements.

Add a new Rule titled “Movements” as follows:

Each player has a Movement, tracked in the GNDT. A Movement is either a single word ending with “ism” or two words the second of which ends with “ism”.

As a Daily Action an Artist may join a Movement by updating the GNDT field to show their new Movement. If this is the first time that particular Movement has been joined by any Artist then the Artist is said to have Founded the Movement.

Dynastic Rules may contain clauses which pertain only to Artists belonging to particular Movements.

A single, stark line of dashed prose, careless to the untrained eye. Five terse words - “Critiques may not be exhibited”. These are the spaces in which the true stuff of art resides.

Reading Bucky’s proposals is like turning the dial on an old radio. Suddenly there is a voice, a garbled news broadcast, a shrill single tone, a story being told, music, then silence - and an emptiness that expresses more through it’s juxtaposition with sound then mere absence. Bucky’s works are fundamentally expressions of loss, seen here through the striking central metaphor of “critiques” and the right to exhibit that is being stripped away. At heart, what is an artist? Is the drive to critique a part of the human condition, and is the denial of the right to exhibit that critique thus a denial of our own humanity? These are the questions that Bucky challenges us with.

Whenever you think that you know what kind of artist Bucky is, he turns out to be quite another. Since exploding back onto the scene after a long hiatus on 29 SEP 2011 22:01:13 UTC, he has pushed the boundaries of the minimalist style - his “Exhibition of smileys (2011)” and “Proposal: Don’t take my acclaim (2011)” utilised the same terseness as H(n)TGAASEE, although it is only with that most recent work that the gradual refinement of the style has blossomed into full maturity. But taking a long view of his career makes it clear that Bucky’s style is bewildering; many in the past have confidently predicted a settling into comfortable habit, but Bucky has never lost his power to shock. Will he continue to refine the Short Post style, or while his next work be a multi-paragraph opus? It is beyond the power of this reviewer to predict, but I suggest that you consume his short work while you still can. Bucky wipes out the world then reinvents it, over and over, in all its awful complexity, and you never know what world he may chose to reflect next.

This positive review is by JOSH.

Add the following text to the end of the rule ‘Everyone’s a Critic’:

Critiques may not be Exhibited.

In the rule “Everyone’s a Critic”, replace “When three or more Artists have expressed Approval of the Critique, the critiqued Artist gains 1 Acclaim if the Critique was Positive, or loses 1 Acclaim if it was Negative.”:-

If three or more Artists have expressed Approval of the Critique, and if the Critique was posted not more than one week ago, the Artist who posted the Critique may Publish it (if they have not already done so) by posting a comment on the Critique to that effect. Upon doing so, the critiqued Artist gains 1 Acclaim if the Critique was Positive, or loses 1 Acclaim if it was Negative.

If any Artist has ever gained any Approval from a Critique, remove that Approval.

I unidle. Quorum is 8.

Bucky once again stuns us with his wit and ingenuity. This clearly minimalist work highlights a deep seated desire to win at all costs, yet also without effort. This juxtaposition of cunning, and complete lack of subtlety blends well with the psychological crisis enforced upon the Artistic Community as they struggle to decide whether approval of such a work would be a wise decision. If this work proves to be a Masterpiece, a paradigm shift could occur, where all Artists throw down their palates as they seek new employment. The evaluation of this work can only be Positive.

If no Rule titled “Masterpieces” exists, this Proposal has no effect.

Add a new Dynastic Rule titled “Styles”:

An artistic Style consists of a name and a list of Stylistic Criteria; a Work of Art belongs to a particular Style if it labels itself as belonging to that Style and satisfies all of its Stylistic Criteria.  An Artist can create a new Style by adding it to the Wiki page “Styles”; a list of Masterpieces belonging to that Style should be maintained along with the entry.

When a Work of Art belonging to a particular Style becomes a Masterpiece, every Artist other than that Work of Art’s author gains 1 Acclaim for each of eir Masterpieces belonging to that Style.

Create a new Dynastic Rule titled “Brinksmanship”:

Each Artist is either Well-Fed (default) or Starving, tracked in the GNDT.  As a Weekly Action, an Artist may become Well-Fed or Starving.

When a Starving Artist would, if not for this rule, lose X Acclaim, he instead loses X*2 Acclaim.  When an Artist who has been continuously Starving for the last three days would, if not for this rule, gain X Acclaim, he instead gains X*1.5 Acclaim.

Amend the Rule titled “Critical Acclaim” by replacing the first paragraph with:

All Artists have a score, tracked in the GNDT, entitled Acclaim. Acclaim must be a nonnegative decimal number and defaults to zero for new Artists.

The author of this proposal achieves victory.

Add the following text to the end of the rule ‘Critical Acclaim’.

No artist may gain more than 5 Acclaim per day.

I posted a story post earlier today, explaining my sudden increase of 10,000 acclaim. This can be found here.

I believe that my scam of the Zeitgeist rule is legitimate and propose that 10,000 Acclaim be added once again to my score.

In the rule “Critical Acclaim”, replace “positive” with “nonnegative”. Then set everyone’s Acclaim to the value it would have if the same change had been made in the proposal that originally created the rule.

Add the following to the Zeitgeist:

Composition (Open)
To meet this Criterion the Work of Art much include every letter of the alphabet in alphabetical order (not necessarily contiguously).
Reward: 2 Acclaim

I believe I’ve found a scam in the Zeitgeist rule:

The Zeitgeist rule states:

The Zeitgeist is a list of Criteria that Artists can optionally meet in their posts to score Acclaim. It is tracked in the following Wiki page: “Zeitgeist”.

Since there is indeed such a page, and that page is a list of criteria, this implies that there can be no criteria. In my post here I have chosen to meet this list of criteria to score Acclaim.

Since there are no criteria the rest of the rule doesn’t apply, as individual elements of Criteria are not present.

To summarise:

1. There is a Zeitgeist page.
2. Therefore, (because of the page’s existence) there is a list of Criteria, which has no content.
3. In my post, I have chosen optionally to meet this list of Criteria.
4. I therefore score acclaim.

Note: This rule does not state how much acclaim I score, and since my acclaim of 10,000 is still a positive integer, I would argue that this is a fair score to give. Alternatively, I could simply meet this list of criteria infinitely, and incrementally gain this score in a similar way.

In the rule “Resolution of Proposals”, remove “Immediately after enacting a proposal that causes a rule with no name to be added to the ruleset, unless the proposal specifically states that the rule should have no name, the enacting admin can change the rule’s title to give it a name, so long as doing so does not change the meaning of any part of the ruleset, nor change any properties of the rule (such as specific words in the title) that the ruleset specifically cares about.”

To the appendix “Rules and Proposals”, add:-

If a rule would ever have no name, it is instead named “Unnamed Rule”.

My career as an artist is not going as well as I had hoped. I request to be idled.

Dear Artists,
I won’t be around the next two weeks. See you back end of October. Request to be idled.

In the rule ‘Critical Acclaim’, replace all instances of “proposal” with “Work of Art”.

If the rule “Critical Acclaim exists and contains two copies of this text: “If an Artist has not made a new proposal for five or more days then, provided that no other Artist has done so in the preceding 3 days, any other Artist may reduce their Acclaim by 5, to a minimum of zero.” then amend the rule by deleting the second copy.

Replace both occurrences of “no other Artist” with “no Artist” in the rule “Critical Acclaim”.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Masterpieces:

If a Work of Art receives the Approval of at least a Quorum of Artists, it may be referred to as a Masterpiece.

After Exhibiting a Masterpiece Work of Art, the Artist may once add a new Open Criteria to the Zeitgeist.

Dear Admins,

Please may I have an account on the Wiki.

(There appears to be an erroneous duplicate paragraph in the rule “Critical Acclaim”, which I plan to remove.)

Yours Faithfully,

The Critic.

Add a new dynastic rule called “Artists Guild” as follows

Within 48 hours of a Proposal being Enacted any Artist who voted FOR the proposal and did not change their vote on that proposal may Gain one Acclaim.

Within 48 hours of a Proposal being Failed any Artist who voted Against the proposal and did not change their vote on that proposal may Gain one Acclaim.

The Artist who submitted the Proposal can not Gain any Acclaim using this rule.

Create a new Dynastic Rule titled “Brinksmanship”:

Each Artist is either Well-Fed (default) or Starving, tracked in the GNDT.  As a Weekly Action, an Artist may become Well-Fed or Starving.

When a Starving Artist would, if not for this rule, gain X Acclaim, he instead gains X*1.2 Acclaim.  When a Starving Artist would, if not for this rule, lose X Acclaim, he instead loses X*1.5 Acclaim.

Amend the Rule titled “Critical Acclaim” by replacing the first paragraph with:

All Artists have a score, tracked in the GNDT, entitled Acclaim. Acclaim must be a nonnegative decimal number and defaults to zero for new Artists.