Amend the Pending Proposal A lannister always pays his debts by changing the following sentence, in the 4th paragraph:

The Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed should then make a comment specifying that the debt has indeed been paid, once this comment is posted the indebted Honourable Member is no longer in debt, otherwise . If the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed does not post a comment specifying that the debt has been paid within 24 hours they lose 2 Credibility, they continue to lose Credibility for every 24 hours that they do not make such a comment. If they have not made such a comment after 72 hours the indebted Honourable Member is no longer in debt.

to read:

The Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed should then make a comment specifying that the debt has indeed been paid, once this comment is posted the indebted Honourable Member is no longer in debt, otherwise, the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed should then make a comment specifying that the debt has not been paid. If the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed does not post a comment specifying that the debt has or has not been paid within 24 hours they lose 2 Credibility, they continue to lose Credibility for every 24 hours that they do not make such a comment. If they have not made such a comment after 72 hours the indebted Honourable Member is no longer in debt.

Add a new subrule to the rule “Standing Orders” entitled “Voting Matters” which states:

Once a proposal is 48 hours old, no new votes will be accepted.

Append the following text to the rule “Credibility”:

If an Honourable Member is considered Corrupt, their vote on any voting matter will not be counted.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled “Debt” and give it the following text:

Any Honourable Member may, at any time, ask another Honourable Member to vote a certain way on a specified proposal (this can be done either publicly; in a post or comment, or privately; in a private message or some other means of communication). Should the Honourable Member accept to vote a certain way on the specified proposal they must clearly communicate their intent. Once the specified proposal has been resolved the Honourable Member who asked the other Honourable Member to vote a certain way on a proposal is considered to be “in dept to” or “indebted to” said Honourable Member. The Honourable Member to whom a debt is owed must make a public story post containing the text “DEBT” in the title within 24 hours of the specified proposal being resolved, if such a post is not made under these conditions by the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed, the debt is made invalid.

When an Honourable Member is owed a debt by another Honourable Member, they may call in this debt at any time by making a public story post with the word “DEBT” in the title and specifying who will be paying the debt, it is not necessary for them to include any more details about the debt itself. They should then communicate with the indebted Honourable Member about the details of the debt, and once a compromise has been reached the indebted Honourable Member should post a comment to the story post, the comment should specify that they accept the debt, otherwise the comment should specify that they do not accept the debt, if no such comment is posted within 24 hours the indebted Honourable Member loses 2 Credibility and will continue to lose 2 Credibility every 24 hours that a comment specifying that they accept or do not accept the debt is not posted.

A debt must not, unless the indebted Honourable Member agrees to it, directly or indirectly sabotage the indebted Honourable Member or cause the indebted Honourable Member to lose Credibility. If the indebted Honourable Member feels that this condition is being broken and a compromise between the indebted Honourable Member and the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed can not be reached, their comment on the post calling in their debt should specify that they do not accept the debt, once this comment is posted either Honourable Member may present this case publicly or privately to the Speaker, who will act as a mediator and will side with either the indebted Honourable Member or the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed, judging as fairly as they are able to. If the Speaker sides with the indebted Honourable Member, the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed will lose 15 Credibility, and the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed may propose another Debt to the indebted Honourable Member. If the Speaker sides with the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed, the indebted Honourable Member will lose 2 Credibility and should comment on the post calling in their debt specifying that they accept the debt.

Once the indebted Honourable Member has paid their debt they should make a story post with the words “DEBT PAID” in the title, this post should specify to whom the debt was paid. The Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed should then make a comment specifying that the debt has indeed been paid, once this comment is posted the indebted Honourable Member is no longer in debt, otherwise . If the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed does not post a comment specifying that the debt has been paid within 24 hours they lose 2 Credibility, they continue to lose Credibility for every 24 hours that they do not make such a comment. If they have not made such a comment after 72 hours the indebted Honourable Member is no longer in debt. If the Honourable Member to whom the debt is owed posts a comment specifying that the debt was not paid, and provides ample evidence (this will be judged at the Speaker’s discretion) that proves that the debt has not been paid, the indebted Honourable Member’s Credibility will drop to 0 and they will no longer be in debt.

If the Honourable Member accepted a debt that they did not pay, their Credibility will drop to 0 and the debt they owe is made invalid.

An action that benefits the Honourable Member to whom a debt is owed, but not the indebted Honourable Member, will not be considered an action that sabotages the indebted Honourable Member.

Amend the Pending Proposal Various Fixes by replacing “T / (F - A)” with “(F - A) / T”.

Add the following to the end of the rule entitled Credibility:

Any Honourable Member who is Corrupt cannot gain Credibility.

Wherever a dynastic rule other than the rule entitled Credibility specifies a quantity of Credibility, double it.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled The Filibuster:

An Honourable Member may Filibuster any proposal by expending 1 Credibility and making a comment to that proposal that includes the word “Filibuster” somewhere in its text. No Honourable Member may post a comment to a Filibustered proposal until at least an hour has passed since the Filibuster was posted, except Honourable Members of the same Party as the Honourable Member who initially posted it. An Honourable Member may not Filibuster a proposal if they have Filibustered that proposal in the preceding 65 minutes.

If a proposal has been filibustered at any point then it may not be resolved unless it has been open for voting for at least 24 hours. If the Proposal is resolved while still Filibustered than any Honourable Member who spent Credibility to Filibuster that Proposal gains a quantity of Credibility equal to that spent.

Add the following as a subrule to the rule entitled Points of Order, called Cloture:

A Point of Order may be raised to invoke Cloture on a proposal. A proposal that has had Cloture invoked upon it may not be Filibustered.

Substitute for the text of rule 2.7 Sessions:

The Dynasty contains periods of time called Sessions, called to order by the Speaker. The Speaker may not call a Session to order if a Session is already in progress. To call a Session to order the Speaker shall make a post to that effect, indicating which Future Agenda (from the ‘Agendas’ wiki page) the Session shall follow. That Agenda is moved to the ‘Current Agenda’ section of the ‘Agendas’ wiki page and can no longer be edited. No Session may end until all Items on its Current Agenda have been resolved, at which point any Honourable Member may make a post of Closing Remarks, which immediately ends (or ‘Adjourns’) the Session and moves the Current Agenda to the ‘Past Agenda’ section of the ‘Agendas’ wiki page.

Amend the rule “Party Consensus” to read:

A Debater of a Proposal is an Honourable Member other than its author.

A Party is Eligible to Hold Consensus over a given Pending Proposal if it is the Party of the author or if it is In Power, and if at least one Debater in that Party has voted on that Proposal. Among all the Parties Eligible to Hold Consensus over a given Pending Proposal, the Party with the largest absolute value of (F - A)/T Holds Consensus over that Proposal, where T is the total number of votes from Debaters in that Party, F is the total number of votes FOR from Debaters of that Party, and A is the total number of votes AGAINST from Debaters in that Party. Votes of DEFERENTIAL do not count in this calculation. In the event of a tie, then the Party of the Proposal’s Author Holds Consensus over the Proposal.

If a Party Holds Consensus over a Pending Proposal, then all votes of DEFERENTIAL cast on that Proposal are instead considered to be valid votes FOR or AGAINST the Proposal, whichever is more common among the valid votes of Debaters from the Party Holding Consensus. Ties are broken in favour of FOR. This effect applies regardless of the Speaker’s vote.

Subtract 150 from the Credibility of every Honourable Member. Amend the rule “Credibility” by replacing each instance of the number “200” with “50”.

Append to the first paragraph of Rule 2.6.1 (“Party Consensus”):

The Party that exerts the above-explained control over the vote of DEFERENTIAL is said to hold Consensus over the Proposal in question.

Remove the last sentence of the second paragraph of Rule 2.6.1 (“Party Consensus”) and append:

If more than one Party still qualify to hold Consensus over the Proposal, then the author’s Party holds Consensus over the Proposal if it qualifies to do so. Otherwise, no Party holds Consensus over it.

I have an idea for punishing Credibility-saving vote-changing but don’t know if it’ll go over as poorly as previous attempts. I don’t think it’s too harsh. I would appreciate any feedback (on content or phrasing), which is why this isn’t a Proposal.

The majority vote on a Proposal is the voting icon (FOR or AGAINST) that the most EVCs on it include.

If any Honourable Member changes their voting icon to the majority vote on a Proposal that has been pending for at least 24 hours, and doesn’t change their vote back before the Proposal is resolved, then that Honourable Member looses the amount of Credibility they would have lost by not changing their vote and doesn’t gain any.

Enact a new rule entitled “Deliberation”:

Any Honourable Member may submit a Deliberation to alter the text of any pending Proposal or Deliberation by posting an entry in the “Deliberation” category that describes those changes (unless the Honourable Member already has a Deliberation pending, or has already submitted 3 Votable Matters that day).

Deliberations are Votable Matters and as such are governed by Rule 1.5 (“Votable Matters”). Deliberations cannot be Vetoed or Self-Killed. Any pending Deliberation may be enacted by any Admin if any of the following are true:

• It has been open for voting for at least 12 hours and has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum.
• It has been open for voting for at least 24 hours, it has more than 1 valid Vote cast on it, and more valid Votes cast on it are FOR than are AGAINST.

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

• It could not be Enacted without either one of the Votes AGAINST it being changed, or the set of Honourable Members being changed, or by awaiting the passage of time.
• It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and cannot be Enacted.
• Its target Proposal or Deliberation has been resolved.

Create a new votable matter post category called “Deliberation” in accordance with the above.

The site won’t load for me every once in a while, and I’m receiving e-mail notifications for comments I already received notifications for, at seemingly random intervals. Anyone else getting such weirdness?

If there exists a rule entitled, “Sway”, then change all instances of the word “Reputation” in that rule to “Credibility”.

Also, amend the following text to the rule, “Credibility”:

If an Honourable Member is considered Corrupt, any Honourable Member or the Speaker can add a “C” to their Credibility score in the GNDT.

Also, amend the following text to the rule “Parties”:

If one quarter (1/4) or more members of a Party (rounded down) are considered Corrupt, then that Party will also be considered Corrupt. If a Party is considered Corrupt then that Party will be tracked in the GNDT as (X C) where X is the name of the Party (i.e. Extremist C, Religious C, etc.).

If there exists a rule entitled, “Sway”, then change all instances of the word “Reputation” in that rule to “Credibility”.

Also, amend the following text to the rule, “Credibility”:

If an Honourable Member is considered Corrupt, any Honourable Member or the Speaker can add a “C” to their Credibility score in the GNDT.

Also, amend the following text to the rule “Parties”:

If one quarter (1/4) or more members of a Party (rounded down) are considered Corrupt, then that Party will also be considered Corrupt. If a Party is considered Corrupt then that Party will be tracked in the GNDT as (X C) where X is the name of the Party (i.e. Extremist C, Religious C, etc.).

Amend of Rule 2.5, “Urgent Questions” to read:

Any Honourable Member may, as a weekly action, make a story post with a title that consists of the words “URGENT QUESTION:” followed by the names of up to three other Honourable Members. The body of that post should contain a single question (which may consist of multiple parts).
The named Honourable Members should then respond to the story post with a comment containing an answer to the urgent question. The answer may be detailed or brief, evasive or specific, but it must address the question asked in the body of the post. Upon answering the question they gain 1 Credibility. Each Urgent Question may be answered by the named Honourable Members only once.

If one or more of the named Honourable Members have not responded to the urgent question within 48 hours, those Honourable Member shall lose 3 Credibility.  No Honourable Member shall lose points more than once for the same question.

How would you build a system for ‘draftable’ proposals?

The goal would be to have a more ‘parliamentary’ style proposal system, where proposals are modified and changed throughout, rather than the system we currently have in place.
Do you think such a system is possible?  Would you support such a system - or would you oppose it?

Add a new dynastic rule called “Sway” and give it the following text

When an Honorable Member casts a Vote on a proposal, he may spend X^2 - 1 Reputation (where X is a positive integer) and include the text “Weight: X” within the comment containing the Vote, which gives the Vote weight X. If he does not do so, the Weight of his vote is considered to be 1.

Proposals may only be resolved if they have been pending for 48 hours. When a Proposal is resolved, it may be enacted if sum of the Weights of all FOR votes exceeds sum of the Weights of all AGAINST votes and at least two Honorable Members cast FOR votes, otherwise it is failed.

Throwing up this CfJ to avoid an edit war on Proposal: Recalibrate. scshunt vetoed and and adminned it; I unadminned it on the basis that the speedy veto hasn’t passed yet; he re-adminned in on the basis that “a quorum of EVCs contained arrows”. I only see two arrows; quorum is currently 8; one of us is being dense. Who?

If this proposal is enacted then reopen Proposal: Recalibrate for voting. Make any proposals made illegal due to slot limits due to this change legal.

Add a new Future Agenda, entitled Condition of Victory, with the following agenda items:

Change in the rule “The Party Line”

When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Failed, and that Proposal was not Vetoed,

to

When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Failed, and that Proposal was not Vetoed or Self-Killed,

and append to the end of the second paragraph

If the Failed proposal was Self-Killed, and there were more EVCs FOR than AGAINST before the vote that Self-Killed it was cast, its author loses 3 Credibility. If there were more EVCs AGAINST than FOR, its author loses 2 Credibility and each Honourable Member who had a valid FOR vote loses 1 Credibility.

Add a subrule to “Parties” entitled “Appropriate Behaviour”:

Each Honourable Member who belongs to a Party is expected to hold up to the standards of that Party. Any time an Honourable Member breaks the Party Guidelines for their Party, any Honourable Member may, within 24 hours of the infraction occurring, reduce the offending Honourable Member’s Credibility by 1, detailing the infraction in a GNDT comment. This may only be done once per separate infraction.

The Party Guidelines are:

* A member of the Communist Party should welcome each new Honourable Member in a comment to their request to join the game within 48 hours of that request being made.
* A member of the Socialist Party should never compliment a member of the Liberal Party in a post or comment.
* A member of the Green Party should, whenever a new Honourable Member joins the game, post the FOR voting icon as a comment to their request to join the game within 48 hours of that request being made.
* A member of the Liberal Party should never compliment a member of the Socialist Party in a post or comment.
* A member of the Religious Party should claim divine inspiration in the flavour text of all proposals they make.
* A member of the Conservative Party should, whenever one of their Peers makes a proposal, compliment that Peer in a comment to that proposal before it is resolved. They may not compliment a proposer who is not a Peer in this fashion.
* A member of the Extremist Party should never vote DEFERENTIAL.

Subtract 150 from the Credibility of every Honourable Member. Amend the rule “Credibility” by replacing each instance of the number “200” with “50”.

Amend the following text to the rule, “Parties”:

If an Honourable Member who belongs to a party changes the party they belong to, that Honourable Member loses 5 Credibility.

Subtract 150 from the Credibility of every Honourable Member. Amend the rule “Credibility” by replacing each instance of the number “200” with “150”.

Create a new rule “Tall Poppies” with this text: “The Tall Poppy is the single Honourable Member (if any) with the highest Credibility. The Short Poppy is the single Honourable Member (if any) with the lowest Credibility. As a weekly communal action, the Short Poppy may decrease the Tall Poppy’s Credibility by 1 and increase their own Credibility by 1.”

Amend Rule 2.2 ““Unanimous” Consent” by replacing “notwithstanding that it is not the oldest pending Proposal” with “as if it were the oldest pending Proposal”.

Append the following to the second paragraph of the rule “Commitments”

Within 48 hours of this post being made, the Honorable Member whom the Tabloid Headline was posted about may once provide proof that the original proof is invalid by making a comment to that post that begins with “IN MY DEFENSE:”. If he does so, he may roll a DICE5 in the GNDT. If the result is a 1, his defense backfires and he loses 3 credibility. If the result is a 2, he manages to smear the accuser, and the Honorable Member who made the post loses 2 credibility. If the result is a 3, the defense is largely ignored, and nothing further happens. If the result is a 4, he manages to exonerate himself and gains 3 credibility. If the result is a 5, he Turns the Tables and gains 5 credibility while the Honorable Member who made the post loses 3 credibility.

In this post, Clucky said (AND I QUOTE):

We should penalize the self-killers

HOWEVER, a mere eight minutes later, he voted against this proposal, which sets out to penalise Honourable Members who change their vote - a category that includes by definition anybody self-killing their own proposal. That contradiction remains unexplained.

Add a new Future Agenda, entitled Party Formation, with the following agenda items:

Encouraging Party Membership
Disincentivising Intransigent Non-Membership
Developing Party Internal Practices

Add the following as a new subrule to the rule entitled Parties, called Collective Responsibility:

Any time an Honourable Member who belongs to a Party loses Credibility, they may once, within 24 hours, Shift the Blame and increase their Credibility by the full amount so lost. They must then distribute the amount of Credibility that they would have lost as evenly as possible amongst all members of the same Party as themselves, with themselves losing any indivisible remainder. If there are more Honourable Members in the Party than Credibility to be distributed then all members of that Party except the Honourable Member whose Shifting of the Blame was the proximate cause of the Credibility loss lose 1 Credibility.

Honourable Members may transfer up to 5 Credibility to any other member of the same Party as themselves as a daily action.

Just noticed the site says its still last dynasty.

In rule “Commitments”, change

from the enactment of this proposal onwards

to

from the enactment of this rule onwards

Add to rule “The Party Line”:

When an Honourable Member changes their valid voting icon on a proposal for the first time, and they did not make the proposal, they lose 1 Credibility. If they then change their voting icon a second time, they lose another 2 Credibility.

In the rule “Agendas”, replace any occurrences of “title” with “Subject” and change the phrase “may be referred to as an Activity” to “should be referred to as an Activity”.

Append to the rule “Sessions”:

If a Proposal is submitted during a Session and is not an Activity or a Whisper, then any Admin may fail it immediately, at which point its author looses 5 Credibility.

Append to Rule 2.6.1 (“Party Consensus”):

If a Party in power qualifies to hold Consensus over a Proposal, and if the Proposal author’s Party and/or another Party in power qualify/ies to hold Consensus over the Proposal, then whichever Party has the value of [total Party EVCs / (Party EVCs FOR - Party EVCs AGAINST)] farthest from 0 holds Consensus over the Proposal. If more than one Party still qualify to hold Consensus over the Proposal, then the author’s Party holds Consensus over the Proposal.

Add a subrule to rule 2.2 ““Unanimous” Consent”, call it “Fast Veto” and give it the text:

If there exists a comment from the Speaker on a given pending Proposal that contains both the ARROW and VETO icons, then that Proposal may be failed by any Admin.

If the Proposal titled “Rotten to the core” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Amend the following text to the rule “Credibility”:

If an Honourable Member who is considered Corrupt raises their Credibility to an amount greater to or equal to 10, they will no longer be considered Corrupt.

Amend the rule “The Party Line” by replacing “loses 3 Credibility” with “loses 2 Credibility”.

Enact a new rule called “Points of Order”, reading as follows:

Any Honourable Member wishing to resolve a matter of controversy through a quick process may make a Point of Order, which is a story post with a title beginning with “POINT OF ORDER:”. The Honourable Member shall explain the nature of the controversy and their opinion on the matter in the Point of Order, and other members may add their own views in the comments.

No sooner than 12 hours after the Point of Order is posted, the Speaker shall Rule the Point of Order to be Well Taken if he agrees that it properly indicates a matter of controversy, and Not Well Taken otherwise. He shall indicate his ruling in the Admin field of the post, and mark the post as Enacted if it is Well Taken and Failed otherwise. If he rules that it is Well Taken, he shall additionally rule on the controversy in order to resolve it. In any case, he shall provide, along with his ruling(s), the reasons therefor. For the duration of the dynasty, the Speaker’s rulings shall be used in interpreting the rules unless overruled by a Proposal or CFJ.

A Point of Order may not cause any change to the game state, but may cause game state tracking (such as the GNDT or the wiki) to require changes due to the interpretation of the game state.

Add the following to the end of the Rule “The Party Line”:

If an Honourable Member would both gain and lose Credibility following the Resolution of a Proposal due to the Rule “The Party Line” they instead gain Credibility equal to the net gain if it is a net gain, or lose Credibility equal to the net loss if it is a net loss.

IceFromHell and thingnumber2 haven’t post a comment or an entry for more than a week, so they get idled. Quorum drops to 8.

Create a wiki page entitled “Agendas”, linked to in the “Current Game Documents” section of the main wiki page, in accordance with Rule 2.8 (“Agendas”), if it does not already exist.

Change Rule 2.7 (“Sessions”) to read:

The Dynasty has lengths of time called Sessions. The Speaker may call a Session to order by making a post to that effect if a Session is not already in progress. In a Call to Order, the Speaker should make a statement about the duties and responsibilities of Honourable Members. In addition, in a Call to Order, the Speaker shall indicate which Future Agenda (from the “Agendas” wiki page) the Session shall follow, which Agenda is moved to the “Current Agenda” section of the “Agendas” wiki page and can no longer be edited. During a Session, any Proposal submitted which is not an Activity or a Whisper cannot be enacted and its author looses 5 Credibility at the moment that it fails. No Session may end until all Items on its Current Agenda have been resolved, at which point any Honourable Member may make a post of Closing Remarks, which immediately ends (or “Adjourns”) the Session and moves the Current Agenda to the “Past Agenda” section of the “Agendas” wiki page.

Change Rule 2.8 (“Agendas”) to read:

Agendas are named lists of Items tracked in a wiki page entitled “Agendas” which has three main sections: “Current Agenda”, “Future Agendas”, and “Past Agendas”. If no Session is in progress, the “Current Agenda” section is empty. The “Past Agendas” section is purely for archival purposes, so no Agenda in it shall be edited. Only Agendas in the “Future Agendas” can be edited; this is done through Proposals, which can add new Items or edit existing Items to existing Future Agendas or create new Future Agendas, which must be named.

No Proposal shall have a Subject which is the text of an Item of a Future Agenda. When a Session is in progress, a Proposal with a Subject which is the text of an Item of the Current Agenda should be referred to as an Activity. There shall be no more than one Activity corresponding to each Agenda Item. The content of an Activity shall be clearly relevant to its corresponding Agenda Item. When the Activity corresponding to an Item is resolved in the manner typical for Proposals, the Item is considered resolved. When an Agenda Item is resolved, the author of its corresponding Activity is awarded 3 Credibility in addition to any Credibility they otherwise receive from authoring a proposal.

If a rule called “Party Consensus” is in effect, change all occurances of “DIFFERENTIAL” to “DEFERENTIAL” and change “Inversely” to “Conversely”.

Amend the following text to the rule, “Credibility”:

If an Honourable Member’s Credibility score falls to 0 at any time then that Honourable Member is considered Corrupt.

Add a new Agenda (to Future Agendas) entitled, “Voting Power”

As subsections (bullets to this agenda), list the following topics:
  Variable number of votes
  Time or environmental factors (e.g. Sessions, Agendas, or In Power)
  Resolution and handling of votes
  Variable hierarchy of votes

When “Voting Power” becomes a Current Agenda, add a section to the wiki to track suggestions and discussion regarding these topics.

While I can understand why this should be problematic, I don’t see anything in the rules against this.

According to the rules of Proposals, “Any Honourable Member may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes (unless the Honourable Member already has 2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day).”

But there, at least to my knowledge, is no rule that governs standard posts.  So in principle, why couldn’t I ‘shift’ a post?  The alternative would be to delete and repost, which sort of has the same effect.  I don’t mind too much if I’m wrong about this, as I’ll repost the rules anyways, but it’s inconvenient.

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

In the rule entitled The Party Line, change all instances of the phrase “at the first moment at which it could have been Enacted” to “at the first moment at which it could have been resolved”.

Enact a new rule, entitled “Parliament Focus”:

At the beginning of each week, the Speaker will choose a topic randomly from the List of Topics (below), and will introduce this topic with a story post, describing the surrounding events and ‘reason’ for this topic.  The topic chosen must always be different than that from the previous week.

Any Hon. Member who does not, in any way, address this topic will lose 5 Credibility.  Honorable Members who create a proposal related to the topic and have it enacted gain 3 Credibility.

As a weekly action, an Hon. Member may, by PMing the Speaker, request a new topic be added.  The Speaker should resolve this order by adding it to the list below or add it to the List of Rejected Topics.

List of Topics:
Global Warming
Taxes
Foreign Policy
Women’s Rights
Abortion
Scientific Education
Parliamentary Budget

Rejected Topics:

Add a new Agenda (to Future Agendas) entitled, “Voting Power”

As subsections (bullets to this agenda), list the following topics:
  Variable number of votes
  Time or environmental factors (e.g. Sessions, Agendas, or In Power)
  Resolution and handling of votes
  Variable hierarchy of votes

When “Voting Power” becomes a Current Agenda, add a section to the wiki to track suggestions and discussion regarding these topics.

I unidle. Please?

Append to the rule “Parties” the text “The other members of an Honourable Member’s Party may be referred to as the Honourable Member’s Peers.”

In the rule “Parties”, modify the text “this is tracked as a word in the GNDT in the column “Party”, or “-” if the Honorable Member belongs to no Party” so that it reads “this is tracked as a word in the GNDT in the column “Party”, or as “-” if the Honorable Member belongs to no Party”.

Enact a sub-rule of “Parties” entitled “Party Consensus”:

If an Honourable Member belonging to a Party submits a Proposal, and if that Proposal has EVCs from the author’s Peers, and if at least half (rounded up) of those Peer EVCs are FOR, then the vote of DIFFERENTIAL is considered to be a vote of FOR, regardless of the vote of the Speaker. Inversely, if at least half (rounded up) of those Peer EVCs are Against, then the vote of DIFFERENTIAL is considered to be a vote of AGAINST, regardless of the vote of the Speaker. For a Party in power, these effects hold for any Proposal, even if the author is not a member of the Party.

Set every Credibility score that is currently being tracked in the GNDT to 100.

Change the rule, “Credibility” to read:

Each Honourable Member and the Speaker has a score called Credibility, which is tracked in the GNDT, can be any whole number between 0 and 200, and defaults to 100.

In the rule entitled Commitments, add the following sentence at the end of the rule:

Any Commitment thus cited in a Tabloid Headline post ceases to be a Commitment.

In the rule entitled Urgent Questions, change the last two paragraphs to read:

The named Honourable Member should then respond to the story post with a comment containing an answer to the urgent question. The answer may be detailed or brief, evasive or specific, but it must address the question asked in the body of the post. Upon answering the question they gain 1 Credibility. Each Urgent Question may be answered by the named Honourable Member only once.

If the named Honourable Member has not responded to the urgent question within 48 hours, any Honourable Member may once reduce their Credibility by 3.

Enact a new rule entitled “The Chair”, reading as follows:

Votes, other than VETO, cast by the Speaker on a Proposal are not Valid unless every other Honourable Member has voted on that Proposal or that Proposal has been pending for more than 48 hours.

If the Credibility of the Speaker is ever 0, then the Speaker must post a Resignation. A Resignation is a Votable matter and is voted on, resolved, and causes Hiatus as if it were a Declaration of Victory. If the Resignation is Enacted, then all Dynastic Rules are repealed and a new metadynasty begins.

If there is a rule entitled “Parties”, amend it by replacing “Each Honourable Member may belong to a Party” with “Each Honourable Member, other than the Speaker, may belong to a Party”

Enact a new rule entitled “The Party Line” that reads as follows:

When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Enacted, then its author gains 2 Credibility and every Honourable Member who had a valid vote AGAINST the proposal at the first moment at which it could have been Enacted loses 1 Credibility.

When an Admin resolves a Proposal as Failed, and that Proposal was not Vetoed, then its author loses 3 Credibility and every Honourable Member who had a valid vote FOR the proposal at the first moment at which it could have been Enacted loses 1 Credibility.

When an Admin resolves a Proposal that was Pending for more than 48 hours, every Honourable Member without a valid Vote on that Proposal loses 1 Credibility.

Add a new rule to the ruleset entitled, “Political Influence”:

Each Honourable Member has a score called Influence, which is tracked in the GNDT, can be any whole number between 1 and 3, and defaults to 3.

Amend the rule, “Parties” to read:

Each Honourable Member may belong to a Party; this is tracked as a word in the GNDT in the column “Party”, or “-” if the Honorable Member belongs to no Party. A Party’s Size is equal to the number of Honourable Members who belong to that Party, and a Party is “larger” than another if it has a greater Size. A Party’s Influence is equal to the total amount of Influence of all of the Honourable members in that party.

At any given time, one or more Parties may be “in Power”, as follows:-

If one Party has more Influence than all other Parties, and an Influence greater than (0.5T+1) where T = Total Influence of all parties, then it alone is in Power.
Otherwise, if two Parties have more Influence than all other Parties, and their combined Influence is greater than (0.5T+1) where T = Total Influence of all parties, then both of those Parties is in Power.
Otherwise, no Party is in Power.
As a weekly action, an Honourable Member may change the Party they belong to to either “Communist”, “Socialist”, “Green”, “Liberal”, “Religious”, “Conservative” or “Extremist”.

Add a new rule to the Dynastic Rules entitled “Parliamentary Procedure” as follows:

If any Honourable Member posts a Proposal or other type of post without placing it in the correct category, the Member should lose 3 Credibility and their Proposal shall not be considered valid.

Enact a new Dynastic Rule entitled ‘Sessions’:

The Dynasty is divided into lengths of time called Sessions. The Speaker may call a Session to order by making a post to that effect if a Session is not already in progress. In such a Call to Order, the Speaker shall indicate which Future Agenda (from the ‘Agendas’ wiki page) the Session shall follow, which Agenda is moved to the ‘Current Agenda’ section of the ‘Agendas’ wiki page and can no longer be edited. No Session may end until all Items on its Current Agenda have been resolved, at which point any Honourable Member may make a post of Closing Remarks, which immediately ends (or ‘Adjourns’) the Session and moves the Current Agenda to the ‘Past Agenda’ section of the ‘Agendas’ wiki page.

Enact a new Dynastic Rule entitled ‘Agendas’:

Agendas are named lists of Items tracked in a wiki page entitled ‘Agendas’ which has three main sections: ‘Current Agenda’, ‘Future Agendas’, and ‘Past Agendas’. If no Session is in progress, the ‘Current Agenda’ section is empty. The ‘Past Agendas’ section is purely for archival purposes, so no Agenda in it shall be edited. Only Agendas in the ‘Future Agendas’ can be edited; this is done through Proposals, which can add new Items or edit existing Items to existing Future Agendas or create new Future Agendas, which must be named.

No Proposal shall have a title which is the text of an Item of a Future Agenda. When a Session is in progress, a Proposal with a title which is the text of an Item of the Current Agenda may be referred to as an Activity. There shall be no more than one Activity corresponding to each Agenda Item. The content of an Activity shall be clearly relevant to its corresponding Agenda Item. When the Activity corresponding to an Item is resolved in the manner typical for Proposals, the Item is considered resolved. When an Agenda Item is resolved, the author of its corresponding Activity is awarded 1 Credibility.

Enact a new rule entitled “Voting Power”:

Honourable members have an integer Voting Power ranging from 1 to 5, tracked in the GNDT.  By default, all Hon. Members and de-idling Hon. Members begin with 1 Voting Power.  For each Voting Power, an Hon. Member may add an additional vote to any proposal. Such a vote will be counted as normal a vote for all intents and purposes.  At no time, however, may an Hon. Member vote more than twice on any one proposal.  Hon. Members gain a Voting Power whenever a Proposal they make is enacted and lose a Voting Power whenever a Proposal they make is failed.  An Hon. Member may never have less than 1 Voting Power or more than 5.

Enact a new rule entitled “Proposals”:

  Wherever this rule contradicts rule 1.4, this rule overrules it.
Any Honourable Member may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes, unless there are 7 or more Proposals pending or the Honourable Member already has 2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day. 
[edit]
1.4.1 Special Proposal Voting
When a Honourable Member casts an explicit vote AGAINST their own Proposal, this renders the Proposal Self-Killed, even if the author later changes their Vote. The Speaker may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a proposal, unless the Speaker has already used VETO on a current pending proposal; when the Speaker casts a vote of VETO on a Proposal, this renders the Proposal Vetoed, even if the Speaker later changes their Vote.
If a Honourable Member other than the Speaker casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, then the Vote of DEFERENTIAL is an indication of confidence in the Speaker. When the Speaker 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 Speaker’s Vote for the purposes of other rules unless otherwise specified.
[edit]
1.4.2 Resolution of Proposals
The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (by updating the Ruleset and/or Gamestate to include the specified effects of that Proposal, and then setting that Proposal’s status to Enacted) if either of the following is true:
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.
The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:
It has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceeds a two-thirds majority of active Honourable Members, and has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed
It has been Vetoed or Self-Killed.

Add a new dynastic rule called “Voting Blocks” and give it the following text

An Honorable Member may belong to one or zero Voting Blocks. By default, an Honorable Member does not belong to a Voting Block. The Voting Block that an Honorable Member belongs to is tracked in the GNDT in a column called “Voting Block”. If an Honorable Member does not belong to a Voting Block, this field is blank for him.

As a Weekly Action, an Honorable Member may Join A Voting Block by changing their Voting Block field in the GNDT to one or more English words, each of which have the first (and only the first) letter capitalized and separated by a single space. The string must be at least 3 characters in length, and no more than 20 characters in length. Upon doing so, they cease to be a member of whatever Voting Block they previously belonged to (if any).

If an Honorable Member belongs to a Voting Block and another Honorable Member belongs to the same Voting Block and has cast a Vote of FOR or AGAINST on a proposal, the former Honorable Member may not cast a FOR or AGAINST vote on that proposal. Instead, their vote is the same as the Honorable Member who belongs to the latter Honorable Member. This holds even if the first Honorable Member casts a DEFERENTIAL vote on the proposal (but he may still cast such a vote for the purposes of having a EVC). If two or more Honorable Members belong to the same Voting Block and have each cast a Vote of FOR or AGAINST on a proposal, the Vote of the Honorable Member who cast their Vote earliest shall be used for all members of that Voting Block.

Enact a new rule, Consistency, containing the following:

For all intents and purposes throughout the Ruleset, “Honorable” and “Honourable” are considered the same term.

Add a new rule, “Parties”:-

Each Honourable Member may belong to a Party; this is tracked as a word in the GNDT in the column “Party”, or “-” if the Honorable Member belongs to no Party. A Party’s Size is equal to the number of Honourable Members who belong to that Party, and a Party is “larger” than another if it has a greater Size.

At any given time, one or more Parties may be “in Power”, as follows:-

• If one Party has a greater Size than all other Parties, and a Size greater than Quorum, then it alone is in Power.
• Otherwise, if two Parties have a greater Size than all other Parties, and their combined Size is greater than Quorum, then both of those Parties is in Power.
• Otherwise, no Party is in Power.

As a weekly action, an Honourable Member may change the Party they belong to to either “Communist”, “Socialist”, “Green”, “Liberal”, “Religious”, “Conservative” or “Extremist”.

If the Proposal titled “Speaker’s Corner” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Add a rule to the ruleset, entitled “Urgent Questions”:

Any Honourable Member may, as a weekly action, make a story post with a title that consists of the words “URGENT QUESTION:” followed by the name of another Honourable Member. The body of that post should contain a single question (which may consist of multiple parts).

The named Honourable Member should then respond to the story post with a comment containing an answer to the urgent question. The answer may be detailed or brief, evasive or specific, but it must address the question asked in the body of the post. Upon answering the question they gain 1 Credibility.

If the named Honourable Member has not responded to the urgent question within 48 hours, they lose 3 Credibility.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Credibility:

Each Honourable Member has a score called Credibility, which is tracked in the GNDT, can be any whole number between 0 and 200, and defaults to 200.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Commitments:

Any statement that an Honourable Member makes - whether as part of the game or outside of it, including via private communication, or in a context completely divorced from BlogNomic - from the enactment of this proposal onwards is said to be a Commitment.

If an Honourable Member can prove that another Honourable Member has made Commitments that contradict each other, or that another Honourable Member has made Commitments that render one or more of their extant Commitments impossible to fulfil, then they may make a story post with a title that begins with the words “TABLOID HEADLINE:” and a body text that details the nature of the Commitments that have (or must inevitably be) broken, along with proof that those Commitments were made by the targeted Honourable Member. They may then immediately reduce the Credibility of the targeted Honourable Member by 3.

Add a new dynastic rule called “Translating Across The Pond” and give it the following text

Before any proposal is enacted, the admin enacting the proposal should replace all occurances of the word “Honorable” with the word “Honourable” within the text of the proposal.

Replace all occurances of the word “Honorable” in the ruleset with the word “Honourable”

Add a new dynastic rule called “Voting Blocks” and give it the following text

An Honorable Member may belong to one or zero Voting Blocks. By default, an Honorable Member does not belong to a Voting Block. The Voting Block that an Honorable Member belongs to is tracked in the GNDT in a column called “Voting Block”. If an Honorable Member does not belong to a Voting Block, this field is blank for him.

As a Weekly Action, an Honorable Member may Join A Voting Block by changing their Voting Block field in the GNDT to one or more English words, each of which have the first (and only the first) letter capitalized and separated by a single space. The string must be at least 3 characters in length, and no more than 20 characters in length. Upon doing so, they cease to be a member of whatever Voting Block they previously belonged to (if any).

If an Honorable Member belongs to a Voting Block and another Honorable Member belongs to the same Voting Block and has cast a Vote of FOR or AGAINST on a proposal, the former Honorable Member may not cast a FOR or AGAINST vote on that proposal. Instead, their vote is the same as the Honorable Member who belongs to the latter Honorable Member. This holds even if the first Honorable Member casts a DEFERENTIAL vote on the proposal (but he may still cast such a vote for the purposes of having a EVC). If two or more Honorable Members belong to the same Voting Block and have each cast a Vote of FOR or AGAINST on a proposal, the Vote of the Honorable Member who cast their Vote earliest shall be used for all membeqrs of that Voting Block.

I unidle.

Amend rule 1.4.2 (“Resolution of Proposals”) to read:

The oldest pending Proposal may be enacted by any Admin (by updating the Ruleset and/or Gamestate to include the specified effects of that Proposal, and then setting that Proposal’s status to Enacted) if either of the following is true:
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.

The oldest pending Proposal may be failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:
It has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, has been open for voting for at least 24 hours and has not been Vetoed or Self-Killed.
It has been Self-Killed.

In addition, Amend rule 1.4 (“Proposals”) to read:

Any Honourable Member may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes (unless the Honourable Member already has 2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day, or 7 or more Proposals over all members are pending).

Finally, change rule 1.4.1 (“Special Proposal Voting”), where it says “The Speaker may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a proposal; “

to read:

The Speaker may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a proposal as long as they have not used VETO on another current pending Proposal.

Enact a new Dynastic rule entitled “Mottos”:

  At any time, an Honorable Member may change their motto to any text.  Furthermore, whenever making a proposal, an Honorable Member should end their proposal with their motto.  Mottos shall not be tracked, by any means of game state.  A new or de-idled Honorable Member shall default to having no motto (ie. the motto of “”).

Most of you probably don’t remember me but I was around for a few weeks a couple of months ago, I’d like to give this another shot.

Amend rule 1.2 by appending “This rule may not be overridden by Dynastic Rules.”

Enact a new Dynastic Rule entitled ‘Standing Orders’ reading as follows:

No Proposal or Dynastic Rule can, by being enacted or otherwise:

• Enact, repeal, or amend any Core Rule or any part of the Glossary.
• Alter any game state contrary to the Glossary or to any Core Rule that cannot be overridden by Dynastic Rules, notwithstanding that Proposal enactment may normally make arbitrary changes to the game state.
• Change the identity of the Speaker.
• Appoint or remove an Admin.

Admins may be appointed by CFJ.

The Speaker should, upon request, make himself available to any Honourable Members who wish to make use of an Admin to take actions requiring specific timing or other unusual action on the part of an Admin.

Enact a new rule entitled ‘“Unanimous” Consent’:

If the EVCs of a Quorum of the Honourable Members who have valid Votes on a given Proposal contain the ARROW http://blognomic.com/images/vote/arrow.gif icon, then that proposal may be resolved by any Admin notwithstanding that it is not the oldest pending Proposal.

By order of the House, the Ruleset is amended by repealing all dynastic rules, by replacing each occurrence of “Auspex” with “Speaker”, and by replacing each instance of “Believer” with “Honourable Member”.

The Speaker hereby calls to order the inaugural meeting of the House of Nomicites at the opening of the First Parliament of BlogNomic in the Fourth Dynasty of scshunt, on this first day after Doomsday.

The House has agreed that the Speaker should make a statement at the beginning of each Session about the duties and responsibilities of hon. Members. Members are answerable for their conduct in this place, not just to the House but to the public. We have great privileges here, and we must respect the powers to which we are accorded by using them responsibly.

Every member of the public has a right to expect that his or her Member of Parliament will behave with civility, in the best traditions of fairness, with the highest level of probity and with integrity. We are also under an obligation to try to explain to our constituents how
Parliament works. But therein lies our fundamental duty. We are at the dawn of a new age, and a brand new House in a brand new Parliament in a brand new Dynasty. We must establish the rules here, so that we may serve as an exemplar of order within this chaotic new world. We have a core set of rules, and that core should remain intact, but now should be a time of experimentation and of wonder in this wonderful new dynasty.

I welcome you all, and let us be the best that we can be.

I join, if I may, in anticipation of the next dynasty (as well as unidle if that’s not implicit in the former). Hello.

Hey everyone,

I don’t really want to hand off my second win in a short period of time, but at the same time, I’m kind of reluctant to take on the position of Auspex given that the next three weeks are going to be quite busy for me. At the same time, we just had a secrecy dynasty in which the Auspex was reasonably involved, and that means that the next one should be reasonably hands-off. Maybe not quite as hands-off as my last one, which basically ran without me doing anything, but not to the point where the Auspex is vital to gameplay.

I’m thinking as a mechanic maybe a list of players, where the goal is to be at the top of the list, and occupation of different spots on the list confers different powers, so part of the gameplay would be jockeying to spots that are better, but without compromising losing the ability to actually win. Another idea is a dynasty to screw with proposals/voting, since they’re the fundamental mechanic of Nomic and they haven’t been touched in a while.

Any thoughts on this?

Busy weekend, and I didn’t know when I would win, of course. But I suppose I did, and I suppose I should claim the win.

Upon the enactment of this proposal, Scshunt has no longer achieved victory. Repeal all dynastic rules and start a new Metadynasty.

I unidle.

Quorum is up to 7.

Doomsday dawns. In the final moments before the new world reveals itself, a figure on the banks of the river drops a rusty antikythera mechanism back into the mud, and stares triumphantly at the sky, arms wide.

With a higher Insight than any other Believer, Scshunt has achieved victory.

If the proposal “Gleaning on a Lamppost” is enacted then change the text:
“The Auspex may not post an anonymous Photocopy proposal from a Believer if that Believer already has two such Photocopy proposals pending”

to read:

The Auspex may not post an anonymous Photocopy proposal from a Believer if that Believer has two proposals, of any type and in any combination, pending.

Enact a rule, “Giving Insight” as a subset to “Insight” as such:

As a once per day action, a Believer may give 1 of their insight to any other Believer or 2 of their Insight to any Believer belonging to the same cult.

Enact a new rule, “Photocopied Flyers”:-

Any Believer may submit a message or Proposal to the Auspex, to be reposted anonymously.

If a Proposal’s title contains the string “[Photocopy]” and was made by the Auspex, then it does not count as a Proposal for the purposes of the “2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day” clause of the rule “Proposals”. The Auspex may not post an anonymous Photocopy proposal from a Believer if that Believer already has two such Photocopy proposals pending.

Curious about activity rates here at BlogNomic, I’ve just compiled some data on the number of proposals made each month - it’s felt significantly quieter lately, and I wondered whether that was backed up by the numbers. The data’s available on the graphs wiki page if anyone wants a look.

So there’s a clear dip there - 2012 was our first year since 2005 in which we never reached more than 100 proposals a month. In 2010 we had an average of 90 a month, in 2011 it dropped a little to 81, but last year we only managed an average of 53 proposals a month. Any thoughts on what might be happening here? Have we just drifted into a general tendency among older players to tinker less with the ruleset, with new players respecting and reflecting the reduced proposal rate? Is that a bad thing, or just a different way of playing?

Replace “Each Believer 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 Believer’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-Believer never has a Vote, even if they were a Believer previously and had cast a valid Vote.” with:-

A Believer’s cast Vote on a Votable Matter is the last valid voting icon that they have used in any comment on that Votable Matter. Valid voting icons are FOR, AGAINST and DEFERENTIAL. 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-Believer never has a Vote, even if they were a Believer previously and had cast a valid Vote.

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

If a Believer’s vote on their own Proposal is AGAINST, this renders the Proposal Self-Killed, even if the author later changes their Vote. VETO is a valid voting icon only available to the Auspex. If the Auspex’s Vote on a Proposal is VETO, this renders the Proposal Vetoed, even if the Auspex later changes their Vote.

Replace “If a Believer other than the Auspex casts a vote of DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, then the Vote of DEFERENTIAL is an indication of confidence in the Auspex.” with:-

A Vote of DEFERENTIAL may be used to defer to the Auspex.

Add a subrule to “Artifacts” called “Scrying”:-

As a weekly action, a Believer (the “Scryer”) may attempt to Scry the date of the end of the world using an Artifact that they have access to, by submitting an Order which names the Cult whose Artifacts they will use in the ritual.

If the specified Cult has no Artifacts, then the Scrying fails and the Believer is informed of this. Otherwise, upon processing such an Order, the Auspex shall reduce the specified Cult’s Artifacts by 1, and privately inform the Scryer of a randomly chosen date which occurs after Doomsday and before the 4th of February 2013; such a date is known as a “Dark Day”.

IceFromHell, Nqeron and ThingNumber2 incorrectly identified Klisz and Scshunt as the sole members of The Midnight Crew.

If the wiki is to be believed, the game of BlogNomic is precisely ten years old today.

Life is calling, may I please be idled?

Add a subrule to “Artifacts” called “Scrying”:-

As a weekly action, a Believer (the “Scryer”) may attempt to Scry the date of the end of the world using a number of Artifacts that they have access to, by submitting an Order which names the Cults whose Artifacts they will use in the ritual, and the number of Artifacts they will use (the “Components”).

If the total number of Artifacts belonging to those Cults is less than the specified number of Components, then the Scrying fails. If the Order names a Cult that the Scryer does not belong to, or a Cult where another member has a higher Insight than the Scryer, then the Scrying fails. In either of these cases, the Scryer is informed that the Scrying has failed.

Upon processing such an Order where the Scrying does not fail, the Auspex shall select X random, distinct days between the 15th and 31st of January, excluding Doomsday, where X is the number of Components (or 10, whichever number is smaller). The Scryer shall then be informed of these days.

There are rumours of a new cult in town.

Can I be unidled, please?

Had some time issues when I left, I think I’ll have more spare time now (:

In the rule “Removal”, replace “If the named Cult has fewer Artifacts than the number specified, then the Believer loses 10 Insight (or, if they have less than 10 Insight, the Believer loses all of their Insight).” with:-

If the named Cult has fewer Artifacts than the number specified, then the removal fails and both the Believer and the Leader of that Cult are informed of the attempt’s failure (and the identity of the Believer)

Also replace “the Believer gains an equal amount of Insight” with:-

the Believer gains an equal amount of Insight; the GNDT update should indicate that this Insight was gained from Artifact Removal

Real life intrudes - please can I be idled.

Add to the rule “Activity”

Replace ““Studying”, “Searching” or “Other”” with:

“Studying”, “Searching”, “Investigating” or “Other”

Add to the end of the same rule

As a daily action that may only be taken on a Wednesday, the Auspex should resolve the Investigators.  Upon doing so, any Believer who is in the same location as another Believer with lesser Insight, but not in the same location as another Believer with greater Insight shall gain 1 Insight.  In addition, any Believer who is in the same location as another Believer with greater Insight, but not in the same location as another Believer with greater Insight shall gain 2 Insight.

iow vqercsXl ssievxgXfekzhpt em

Add as a subrule to “Artifacts”

A cult leader may, by command, specify a number of artifacts belonging to his cult to trade in and a list of Believers belonging to his cult.  As long as the number specified is a positive integer, greater than 0 and less or equal to the number of artifacts owned by the cult, he succeeds at doing so.  Upon a successful trade, each Believer on the list will receive one Insight for every item divided by the number of believers, rounded up.  (e.g. 3 artifacts with 3 believers, each would receive 1 insight).

The Lords of Science have secured the Hospital.

In the rule “Inquisitions”, replace “if either of the following three conditions is true” with “if any of the following conditions are true”, and add to that list of conditions:-

The sender, or either or both of the Collaborators, has already been a Sender or a Collaborator in a successful Inquisition which specified the same List of Heretics and same Target Cult

Add a new rule, “The Comfy Chair”:-

If any Inquisitions were Successful between the time of the Proposal “Tell Us Something We Don’t Know” being made and being enacted, but would not have been Successful under the amendment it proposed, then the Auspex may remove the Insight that was gained from them. The Auspex may repeal this rule at any time.

Clucky and Murphy idle out after more than a week of inactivity. Quorum drops back to 7

Thank you

Add to the end of the rule entitled “Doomsday”:

As a one time action, any believer may send an order to the Auspex, with the subject Doomsday, and including a date on which they predict doomsday will occur.

When Doomsday occurs, the Auspex shall reward each believer who had correctly predicted the date with N Insight, where N is the number of days between doomsday and the date the prediction was made, with a maximum of 5.

Replace “As a daily action that may only be taken on a Saturday, the Auspex should send a Private Message to each Believers whose Activity is “Searching”. The message should include the headquarters of a Cult who’s Secretiveness score is less than the Insight of each Believer, without revealing the name of the Cult.” with:-

As a daily action that may only be taken on a Monday, the Auspex may Resolve the Searches. Upon doing so, for each Believer whose Activity is “Searching”, the Auspex shall send a Private Message to that Believer listing the name of each Cult whose Headquarters is located in that Believer’s current Location, excluding those Cults whose Secretiveness score is greater than the Believer’s Insight.

Add a new rule, as a subsection of cults (making it 2.1.6), named Moving Headquarters, with the text:

As a weekly action, a cult leader may send an order to the Auspex requesting a move of the cult’s head quarters.  Such a request must include the name of the location to which the cult leader wishes to move the HQ. Such a request is successful if the cult leader has at least N Believers (including the leader) distributed evenly between the current location of the Headquarters and the location to which it is moving, where N is the cult’s Secretiveness score.  Otherwise, the request fails.

If the request succeeds, the Auspex notifies the leader and all that cult’s member’s of the change.  In addition, he makes a blog post exposing the fact that a Cult has moved location without revealing the identity of the Cult, the old location of the Cult’s headquarters, or the new headquarter locations.
If the request fails, the Auspex notifies the leader of such.

As a subrule to “Artifacts”, enact a new rule, “Raiding”:-

As a weekly action, a Believer may attempt to raid another Cult by submitting an Order specifying an intent to Raid, and listing their own current Location, the name of a Cult they wish to target, and the name of a Cult they belong to which will benefit.

Upon the Auspex processing such an Order, if the raiding Believer is located in the targetted Cult’s Headquarters, then half of that Cult’s Artifacts (rounded up) are transferred to the benefitting Cult. The raiding Believer is informed of his or her action’s success and the number of Artifacts transferred, and the Leaders of both Cults are informed of the change to their Artifact collection.

If upon processing such an order the raiding Believer is not located in the targetted Cult’s Headquarters, then the action fails and the Auspex shall post a blog entry naming the Believer, the Location they were attempting to raid and the Cult that they were targetting.

A series of fires have broken out in the Back Streets of the city. Rumours are that The Midnight Crew is to blame.

If it has not previously occurred, to the rule “Infamy” after the section on Power scores add the text

Each Cult has a Secretiveness score. The Secretiveness score of a Cult is equal to the Power score of that cult times 3.

Change the words Secretiveness score anywhere in the Ruleset to read Secret score.

If it has not previously occurred, change the first sentence the rule “Activity” to read

Each Believer is undertaking one Activity, which may be either “Studying”, “Searching” or “Other”

In the rule “Activity”, remove the portion “As a daily action that may only be taken on a Saturday, the Auspex should send a Private Message to each Believers whose Activity is “Searching”. The message should include the headquarters of a Cult who’s Secretiveness score is less than the Insight of each Believer, without revealing the name of the Cult.” if such a portion exists and replace it with

As a daily action that may only be taken on a Monday, the Auspex should send a Private Message to every Believer who has an Insight level greater than the Secret score of a Cult. The message should include the headquarters of that Cult, but not its name. If there are multiple Cults to choose from, the Auspex shall randomly choose a valid Cult from the possible entries.

If that portion does not exist, add the above text to the end of the “Activity” rule.

The Auspex has been passed the following message for anonymous redistribution on the blog:-

Higgs Boson Discovered. As this new discovery is heralded, and the impending doom of earth drawing closer, a message floats, reading: guryb eqfbs fpvra prerd hrfgl bhece rfrap rvagu rubfc vgnyb afhaq nlxxx

A new section shall be created entitled Rank, with the text:

Cult leaders may at any time, for any reason give or remove Rank points to any other member of their cult.  Rank points are tracked by the Cult leader.

As soon as a member of a cult achieves a certain number of Rank points, they achieve a Cult Status.
The Cult Statuses and the Rank points at which they are achieved are as follows:

Initiated: upon initiation
Acolyte: 5 Rank points
Indoctrinated: 10
Immersed: 20
Elder: 30

A Cult leader does not have Rank points, and has no ‘Cult Status’.

In the rule “Activity”, replace “each Believer who is Studying gains Insight equal to the highest Power score among all Cults that they belong to” with:-

each Believer who is Studying gains Insight equal to three times the highest Power score among all Cults that they belong to

In the rule “Idle Cults”, replace “If all members of a Cult are idle, the Auspex may delete that Cult” with:-

If all members of a Cult are idle, the Auspex should delete that Cult

Please de-idle me.

To the rule “Infamy” after the section on Power scores add the text

Each Cult has a Secretiveness score. The Secretiveness score of a Cult is equal to the Power score of that cult times 3.

Change the first sentence the rule “Activity” to read

Each Believer is undertaking one Activity, which may be either “Studying”, “Searching” or “Other”

Add the following text to the end of the rule:

As a daily action that may only be taken on a Saturday, the Auspex should send a Private Message to each Believers whose Activity is “Searching”. The message should include the headquarters of a Cult who’s Secretiveness score is less than the Insight of each Believer, without revealing the name of the Cult.

Numerical chalked graffiti signals the establishment of The Lords of Science.

The Purifying Fire attempted to add the “Crowded” Trait to the Library, but this attempt failed since a Location can only have one Trait (Rule 2.2.1: “Each Location may have a single Trait.”), and the Library was already Secured.

Nqeron, Quirck and Robo1995 falsely suspected the The Purifying Fire of consisting solely of Larrytheturtle, Murphy and RaichuKFM.

The Library has been Secured by The Purifying Fire. As a result, this Cult is now Tolerated by the people of the city.

Add to the end of Rule 2.9:

As a one-time action, a Believer may create an order with the subject Doomsday and include a date on which they think Doomsday will occur.  When Doomsday occurs, any believer who predicted the correct date will gain N insight, where N is the total number of believers who failed to correctly predict Doomsday (Note: this excludes all Believers who did not make a prediction).

In Rule 2.2 Locations, change

As a daily Action, a Believer may change their own Location to any valid Location (except for “Unknown”).

to read:
“As a daily Action, a Believer undertaking the Activity “Moving” may change their own Location to any valid Location (except for “Unknown”).

And in Rule 2.10 change

Each Believer is undertaking one Activity, which may be either “Studying” or “Other”.

to read : “Each Believer is undertaking one Activity, which may be either “Studying”, “Moving”, or “Other”.

Im interested in unidling, and becoming an active believe

In the rule “Inquisitions” under the description of the outcome of a failed Inquisition, add the text

If the Insight of the sender is greater than or equal to double the Power score of the Target, the Auspex may send a private message including a hint regarding the Target, which may include but is not limited to the number of Believers in te Target, a particular Believer who is a member of the Target, or the location of the Target’s headquarters.

In the rule “Artifacts”, replace “increase the Artifacts of that Cult by C*V where C is the half the number of Believers who were both members of the Cult and whose Location was the Target at the time the Order was sent, rounded down, and V is the Extradition Value of the Target” with:-

increase the Artifacts of that Cult by C*(V+P) where C is the half the number of Believers who were both members of the Cult and whose Location was the Target at the time the Order was sent, rounded down, V is the Extradition Value of the Target, and P is the Power score of the Cult

Cpt_Koen, Henri and southpointingchariot all become idle after more than a week of inactivity. Quorum is 7 now.

Idle me, please.