Add a subrule to the rule called “The Reviewers.” Call it “Opposition Research” and give it the following text:

Once per Dynasty, the Restaurant Manager may Solicit Interviews. Upon doing so, the Restaurant Manager makes a new Story Post explaining that the local Reviewers have been profiled in a trade journal and have given some idea of their respective tastes. They then list the name of each regular Reviewer and two of their characteristics, chosen randomly by a private method of the Restaurant Manager’s choice. The Restaurant Manager may not post a Review within 24 hours of Soliciting Interviews.

Hey guys, I’m going to have to idle for now.  Sorry about that.  It’s been fun playing though!

Enact a subrule to “Supply Chain” called “Taking Stock”:-

Once per dynasty, the Restaurant Manager may Take Stock: upon doing so, he or she selects five different Packages at random (from those which are not currently the subject of a Tasting Contest) and reveals in a blog post the Ingredient that each corresponds to. For the purpose of all other rules, this process is considered to be a Tasting Contest.

The Restaurant Manager may not post a Review within 24 hours of Taking Stock.

Ely times out after eight days of inactivity, and goes idle. Quorum drops to 3.

To the rule “Supply Chain”, add:-

If a Tasting Contest has revealed that a particular Package corresponds to a particular Ingredient, and if nobody has done so already, then any Cook (or the Restaurant Manager) may add that Ingredient in square brackets after the name of the Package in the above list; such Packages are considered to be Known.

If a Recipe refers to an Ingredient by name, and that Ingredient corresponds to a Known Package, then the Ingredient reference is instead considered to be a reference to a Package that corresponds to that Ingredient, on the above list. (If multiple Packages correspond to the Ingredient, it is considered to be a reference to the one which appears earliest in the list.)

Things are a bit hectic lately. I’ll try to come back for the next dynasty.

Come on. I dare you.

Enact a new rule “Tasting Contest”:-

Cooks occasionally challenge one another to gulp down mouthfuls of the bland and cryptically-labelled food products, to see if they can work out what they are.

If no Tasting post is active, any Cook may make a Tasting post with a subject line “Tasting: [Box]”, where “[Box]” is the name of a single randomly chosen Package (excluding those which the Manager has revealed the nature of in previous Tasting posts). Upon being posted, this post becomes active.

While a Tasting post is active, any Cook may send a private message to the Restaurant Manager stating what Ingredient they believe its Package corresponds to: this is known as their Best Guess for that post. If a Cook submits more than one private message in this way, only their most recent such message is their Best Guess for it.

If a Tasting post has been active for more than 48 hours, the Restaurant Manager may resolve it, applying and announcing one or more results as follows:

• If any Best Guesses for this post correctly identified the Ingredient which corresponds to the post’s Package, the Manager shall reveal that Ingredient and give each Cook who made such a Best Guess 1 Award.
• If the Ingredient that corresponds to the Package is Chilli Pepper, the Manager shall reveal this fact, and any Cook who made a Best Guess on this post is considered Absent for the purposes of the most recent Review: this fact should be noted in comments on the most recent Review. If a Cook is Absent for a Review, any Recipes they have posted to that Review are ignored.

The post then ceases to be active.

Reword “Fame” to:-

Each Cook has a “References” field, tracked as a string in the GNDT, consisting in the first letters of the names of the Reviewers that have Praised that Cook. A Reviewer is considered to have Praised a Cook if they have ever awarded one of that Cook’s Recipes a rating that included three or more stars.

In the rule “Victory”, replace “a five-star rating from five Reviewers” with:-

Praise from five Reviewers

This Review is brought to you by Dominique Labaguette. He was pleased to announce that Antonio Fusilli will be coming to the restaurant again. While doing so, he revealed that Fusili does eat meat, every now and then, and definitly is NO vegetarian.

He the proceeded tasting the various meals and dishes brought before him, starting with Brendan’s “Woodland Horror”. While giving it a “+ - - - -”, he was so scarred of the red glowing eyes staring back at him (and the smell! THE SMELL!) that he refused to comment on the ingredients and did not let anyone taste it, exclaiming it was “a danger to humanity.”
Next up was Kevan’s “Bee Thermidor aux Bicyclettes”. Although doubting how well Bees and Bicycles would go with one another, he was excited to give it a rating of “* * + + -”. Everyone was allowed to taste it this time, and everyone agree that it tasted (Sweetness 10 Sourness 10 Umami 10 Spicyness 10) and that it was definitly not vegetarian.
The final dish brought before Dominique was “The Fork Ran Away with the Shoes” by exploto. It’s rating was so-and-so, at the end being “* + - - -”. When everone was allowed to take a mouth full, they found it tasted (Sweetness 10 Sourness 0 Umami 10 Spicyness 3) with some meat in it.

Kevan received the award for this Review, being declared “Winner of the Day” for his Recipe.

To the final paragraph of the rule “Equipment”, add:-

When a Consumable Equipment would have an effect added to it under the previous rule, the Cook who would add it may instead add up to three effects to that Equipment, in a specific order of their choosing.

Replace “Each piece of Equipment may have an effect on a Recipe” with “Each piece of Equipment may have a number of effects on a Recipe”.

In “Recipes”, replace “the effect of that Equipment is applied to the Recipe” with “the effect(s) of that Equipment are applied to the Recipe in the order they are listed”.

Remove the sentence “The first step of a Recipe must always add a Package type.” from “Recipes”.

Then, after the bulleted list in that rule, add:-

The first step of a Recipe must always add a Package type. Only the final step of a Recipe may be a Garnish.

Neither Josh nor Severian have posted or commented in the past week, and both are automatically idled. Quorum drops to 4.

If any Reviewers are both Vegetarian and have Minced Meat as their Favourite Ingredient, then those Reviewers shall cease to be Vegetarian when this proposal enacts. This gamestate change takes precedence over the rule that “the characteristics of the Regular Reviewers (Sweet Spots, Vegetarianism, Favourite Ingredient) are fixed”.

From the Rule “Review”, replace

When the Restaurant Manager posts a Review, if any Cooks used Consumable Equipment in their Recipes, those Consumable Equipments are removed from those Cooks.

with

If a Cook posts a comment that seems to be a Recipe but is not, for example including a name and a list of ingredients and no one has already done so, any Cook or the Restaurant Manager should point that fact out in a comment to that Blogpost.

Hearing about the first star ever given out to one of the Cooks managed by the Restaurant Manager, Dominique Labaguette asked and received an invite to be the next Reviewer. He is well known for his, literal, sweet spot of 10 for Sweetness.

This weeks Reviewer, Bruce Haggis, published his results in the newly suggested Reviewer’s Standard Review Publishing Format:
Cook | Name of Recipe | Rating | Properties
Kevan | “Burning Sun” | * * + - - | Flambée
Sylphrena | “Spiky Sphere” | * * + - - | Sweetness 8 Sourness 4 Umami 10 Spicyness 4
Ely | “Vinegar Volcano 2.0” | * * - - - | Flambée
Exploto | “Science Soufflé” | * + - - - | Sweetness 6 Sourness 3 Umami 10 Spicyness 0 Vegetarian
Brendan | “Soup of the Night (One More Time)” | * + - - - | Sweetness 7 Sourness 4 Umami 1 Spicyness 0

There is no “Winner of the Day”.

In rule “The Cashier” (if it exists) change: “Effect: That Reviewer becomes the next Reviewer, overriding what was stated in the most recent Review.” to:

Effect: When posting the next Review, the Restaurant Manager shall choose that Reviewer as the new Reviewer (rather than using a method of their choice, as stated by rule “Review”).

Create a new rule, “Money”:

The Restaurant has an integer, non negative amount of Money - its Funds - measured in Starbucks and kept track of in the GNDT, in the References field of the Restaurant Manager. The Restaurant Funds default to 0.
If nobody has done so since the last Review was posted, the Manager or any Cook may increase the Restaurant funds by as many Starbucks as total Stars that were awarded in that Review.

Create a new rule, “The Cashier”:

The single Cook who was rated the fewest Stars (among those Cooks who were rated at all) in the most recent Review receives the chore of attending the Cash Register, and is thus the Cashier.
If the Cashier has not done so since the last Review was posted, the Cashier may take a single Expensive Action by deducting that Expensive Action’s price from the Restaurant Funds and then noting that they are taking that Action in a comment to the most recent Review (this comment shall also include the object(s) of the Action, if that action requires any).
Expensive Actions are listed here, together with their price in Starbucks and effects:
* Invite a Reviewer as Special Guest. Price: 5 Starbucks. Effect: That Reviewer becomes the next Reviewer, overriding what was stated in the most recent Review.
* Buy new Equipment. Price: twice the number of Active Cooks, in Starbucks. Effect: the Cashier adds a piece of equipment of their choice to each Cook’s inventory (they need not be identical pieces of Equipment). If a Cook has already 10 pieces of inventory, they receive nothing.
* Hang Curtains. Price: 8 Starbucks. Effect: Cooks may submit Recipes to the next Review as private messages to the Manager, as if they were commenting to the Review. (Volunteer Comments must still be comments)
* Employ a food taster on a Package. Price: 10 Starbucks. Effect: When posting the next Review, the Manager may and should publicly reveal the content of that Package.
* Employ a journalist to ask a specific Reviewer about one specific Characteristic of theirs. Price: 12 Starbucks. Effect: When posting the next Review, the Manager may and should publicly reveal that characteristic of that specific Reviewer.

In the rule “The Reviewers”, add to Mad-Tongue Moody’s bulleted list of characteristics:-

His favourite Ingredient is Chilli Pepper.

Replace “Each Regular Reviewer has one Favourite Ingredient” with “Each Reviewer has one Favourite Ingredient”.

In the Rule “Review”, add directly after “When the Restaurant Manager posts a Review, if any Cooks used Consumable Equipment in their Recipes, those Consumable Equipments are removed from those Cooks.”

If the Restaurant Manager has made an error in a Rating the newest Review, he should post a comment to the review mentioning the mistake and reveal the correct Rating. While doing so, the Restaurant Manager should correct all Gamestate as if the error had never happened. If such an error was made in an earlier Review, the Restaurant Manager should post a comment in that Review mentioning the error, but not revealing the corrected Rating and not changeing Gamestate. All Cooks should carefully check each Review and point out possible errors to the Restaurant Manager.

Rename “Red Pepperoni” to “Chilli Pepper” in the ruleset.

Change the rule “Victory” to

Any Cook who has received a five-star rating from five Reviewers, and who has more Awards than any other Cook with a five-star rating from five Reviewers, has achieved victory.

In the rule “Review”, add a new subrule called “Awards” with the following text:

Each Cook has an Awards field, tracked as a positive number, including and defaulting to zero, in the GNDT. In each Review, the Restaurant Manager declares the Entry Recipe with the most stars “Winner of the Day”. If more then one Entry Recipe has the most Stars, then of those with the most Stars the one with the most Plusses is declared “Winner of the Day”. If there are several with the most Stars and the most Plusses, then there is no “Winner of the Day”. The Cook who has submitted the “Winner of the Day” gets an Award.

After hearing so much about the new Restaurant managed by mideg, Bruce Haggis urged the manager to invite him as next Reviewer, and thus it was decided. He was quoted; “Whatever that grumpy old Moody fella doesn’t like cannot be that bad!”, right before explaining exactly how much Sourness a, quote, “proper meal” should include, namely 4.

The long expected food tasting of Antonio Fusili went rather well - at least compared to last weeks experience.
His course started with Kevans “Soup of the Day”. While not receiving any stars, it was not bad as a starter, receiving a rating of + + + + -. When it was tasted by the other Cooks, it was agreed upon that its Properties were (Sweetness 3, Sourness 0, Umami 3, Spicyness 5, Vegetarian).

Then, Fusili continued to sample Explotos “Some Kind of Icarus”. He could barely hold it in, giving it a + - - - -. Properties: (Sweetness 4, Sourness 0, Umami 3, Spicyness 10)

Brendans “Warsh Rowboat” was up next and was later named winner of the day with a rating of * + + - -. Brendan was very happy to taste its Properties, (Sweetness 8, Sourness 7, Umami 7, Spicyness 2, Vegetarian)

The Reviewer was a little sceptical about the Sting included in Elys “The One-Bee Sting”, but it was less painfull then expected and received a + + + + -. Ely was a little surprised to find meat in there - bee meat? Its Properties were (Sweetness 6, Sourness 4, Umami 10, Spicyness 4).

Add a new rule called “Victory” with the following text:

Any Cook who has received a five-star rating from five or more Reviewers, and who has received five-star ratings from more Reviewers than any other Cook, has achieved victory.

Replace “The Restaurant Manager may post a Review if one has not been posted in the previous 6 days” with:-

The Restaurant Manager may post a Review if one has not been posted in the previous 48 hours

Create a new rule, placing it at the beginning of the dynastic rules section: “The Restaurant Manager”:

The Restaurant Manager (aka the Manager) is not considered a cook for the purposes of dynastic rules.

In the Rule “Recipes”, change the text

A Recipe consists of a name, a list of three to six Packages, and a list of between one and six Steps in sequence. A Step may either be: adding a quantity of one of the Package types listed in the Recipe, or using a piece of Equipment. The first step of a Recipe must always add a Package type.

A Step is considered to add a quantity of a Package if it mentions the name and quantity of that Package; if the text of a Step also includes one (and only one) of the following verbs, then that Step has the corresponding effect when applied:

to

A Recipe consists of a name, a list of three to six Packages, and a list of between one and six Steps in sequence. A Step may either be: adding a quantity of one of the Package types listed in the Recipe, or using a piece of Equipment. The first step of a Recipe must always add a Package type. A Recipe must use exactly the Packages mentioned in its list of Packages in its Steps.

A Step is considered to add a quantity of a Package if it mentions the name and a quantity of that Package, or one of a Package if it only mentions the name of a Package without a quantity. If the text of a Step also includes one (and only one) of the following verbs, then that Step has the corresponding effect when applied:

If Proposal “So Sous me” failed, this Proposal does nothing.
In rule “Sous”, change: “A Cook may, instead of submitting a Recipe for review, choose to be Sous to another Cook.” to:

A Cook who has no Sous Cook may, instead of submitting a Recipe for review, choose to be Sous to another Cook.

Add a new rule called “Good Graces” with the following text:

If a Cook submits an Entry Recipe which receives a ***** rating from a given Reviewer, they have gained an Insight on that Reviewer. Within the next five days after the Review containing this rating is posted, they may send a private message to the Restaurant Manager, informing them that the Reviewer’s tastes have changed and that one of their Sweet Spots (of the Cook’s choice) has increased or decreased by 1. The Cook then no longer has an Insight. Upon receiving this message, the Restaurant Manager should privately update the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot as indicated and rate Recipes according to that updated characteristic in future Reviews. A Reviewer’s Sweet Spot cannot be set to above 10 or below 0 by this method.

Add a new subrule called “Sous” to the rule “Reviews,” with the following text:

A Cook may, instead of submitting a Recipe for review, choose to be Sous to another Cook. They may make this choice by posting a non-Recipe comment to a Review announcing that they are Sous to X, where X is the name of another Cook who does not have anyone currently Sous to them. This is called a Volunteer Comment. Any earlier Entry Recipe they have submitted is no longer a valid Entry Recipe, and they may not later post another Volunteer Comment or Entry Recipe on the same Review.

When posting an Entry Recipe, if a Cook has a Sous Cook, they may use any piece of Equipment possessed by that Sous Cook as if it were their own. When the next Review is posted, a Sous Cook earns the same rating as the Cook to whom they are Sous. All existing Sous-Cook relationships are then dissolved.

If a given Cook has already received a 5-star rating from a given Reviewer, they may not be Sous to anyone when preparing Recipes for that Reviewer.

Create a Sub-rule to rule Recipes, called “Plagiarism”:

A Recipe may not be composed of exactly the same Steps (in the same order) and Packages as another. Two different Recipes may not have the same name. Thus, the set of contents of a Recipe univocally correspond to the name of the Recipe.
As a clarification: a Recipe may be posted as a comment to the most recent Review (following the limitations set by rule “Review”) even though it has already been posted on a Review.

Amend Rule “Ratings” to read as follows:

A rating is a String comprised of exactly 5 characters, that can be any combination of plus signs (+), minus signs (-), or asterisks (*) (alias: Stars). Possible spacing and the order of characters in a Rating are irrelevant, and should be kept consistent between ratings (eg: by putting all the asterisks first and all plus signs at the end).

When required to determine Ratings to multiple Entry Recipes, the Restaurant Manager shall determine the Rating to each Entry Recipe singularly in the chronological order of the times of posting of those Entry Recipes. The Restaurant Manager shall follow some set rules on how to determine the Rating based on the Recipe contained in the Entry Recipe and on the Characteristics of the current Reviewer.  These rules are applied in the following order and are as follows:

  1. The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
  2. For each Valued Property of the recipe that is exactly equal to the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
  3. For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.
  4. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient and the Rating contains 4 or more Stars, set the Rating to * * * * *.
  4. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient and the Rating contains at least one Plus, one Plus is changed to a Star.
  6. If the Recipe does not have the Additional Property Vegetarian and the Reviewer is a Vegetarian, replace all but two Stars with Minuses.
  7. If that Reviewer has already Rated an Entry Recipe consisting in the same Recipe as this one, the Rating to this Entry Recipe becomes + + + + + (meaning: “I’ve had too much of this already, thank you.”).

The next Reviewer will be Antonio Fusilli. In a recent interview, he mentioned that his Sweet Spot for Sourness is 1.

Mad-Tongue Moody almost ripped his tongue out when he tasted the Entry Recipes provided by the Cooks.

Kevan’s “Eggplant Surprise” received a rating of - - - - -.
“Exploding Fork Bee Carbonara”, made by Josh, was rated - - - - -.
Ely, who served “Totally not ripped-off Surprise”, was given - - - - -.
Brendan’s final score with his “Inevitable Bouche” was - - - - - as well.
No other Cook was able to provide a legitimate Recipe.

There was talk of an “Gargantuan Massacre” when Mad-Tongue Moody stormed out of the restaurant.

If “Destroying the Evidence” enacted, replace “The Recipe’s Ratings are not posted when it is Taste Tested.” with:

The Recipe’s Valued and Additional Properties are not posted when it is taste-tested.

Replace the bulleted list in “Equipment” with:-

• +X Property (where X is a number from 1 to 3): The Valued Property is increased by X.
• -X Property (where X is a number from 1 to 3): The Valued Property is decreased by X.
• Remove Property: The Valued Property is set to zero.
• Double Property: The Valued Property is doubled.
• Flambée: The Recipe’s Ratings are not posted when it is Taste Tested.

Where “Property” appears in the title of an effect in the list above, it should be replaced with the name of a Valued Property when given to a piece of Equipment.

Stadjer hasn’t posted or commented in ten days, and is automatically idled. Quorum drops to 5.

Add a new subrule called “Sous” to the rule “Reviews,” with the following text:

A Cook may, instead of submitting a Recipe for review, choose to be Sous to another Cook. They may make this choice by posting a non-Recipe comment to a Review announcing that they are Sous to X, where X is the name of another Cook who does not have anyone currently Sous to them. This is called a Volunteer Comment. Any earlier Entry Recipe they have submitted is no longer a valid Entry Recipe, and they may not later post another Volunteer Comment on the same Review.

When posting an Entry Recipe, if a Cook has a Sous Cook, they may use any piece of Equipment possessed by that Sous Cook as if it were their own. When the next Review is posted, a Sous Cook earns the same rating as the Cook to whom they are Sous. All existing Sous-Cook relationships are then dissolved.

If a given Cook has already received a 5-star rating from a given Reviewer, they may not be Sous to anyone when preparing Recipes for that Reviewer.

Add a new subrule called “Analysis” to the rule called “Review” with the following text:

Only once the critic has left the restaurant may the Cooks themselves taste-test their concoctions. When posting the Ratings for the Entry Recipes of each Cook, the Restaurant Manager shall also post the Valued Properties and Additional Properties of each Entry Recipe so reviewed.

In the Rule “Review”. change “In the Review he has to announce the name of the new Reviewer.” to

In the Review he has to announce the name of the new Reviewer that he has determined with a method of his choice.

In the Rule “Recipes”, replace

Recipes have the same Valued Properties as Ingredients do. These are calculated by starting them all at zero, then applying the Recipe’s Steps in sequence. When a Step adds a quantity of a Package, it increases the Valued Properties of the Recipe by the Valued Properties of the Ingredient that corresponds to that Package, multiplied by the quantity being added. When a Step uses a piece of Equipment, the effect of that Equipment is applied to the Recipe (unless the Cook who posted the Recipe does not possess that piece of Equipment at this time). If a Step would reduce a Recipe’s Valued Property below zero, it instead becomes zero; if it would increase a Recipe’s Valued Property above 5, it instead becomes 5.

with

Recipes have the same Valued Properties as Ingredients do but with integer values from 0 to 10. These are calculated by starting them all at zero, then applying the Recipe’s Steps in sequence. When a Step adds a quantity of a Package, it increases the Valued Properties of the Recipe by the Valued Properties of the Ingredient that corresponds to that Package, multiplied by the quantity being added. When a Step uses a piece of Equipment, the effect of that Equipment is applied to the Recipe (unless the Cook who posted the Recipe does not possess that piece of Equipment at this time). If a Step would reduce a Recipe’s Valued Property below zero, it instead becomes zero; if it would increase a Recipe’s Valued Property above 10, it instead becomes 10.

The next Reviewer will be Antonio Fusilli. In a recent interview, he mentioned that his Sweet Spot for Sourness is 1.

Mad-Tongue Moody almost ripped his tongue out when he tasted the Entry Recipes provided by the Cooks.

Kevan’s “Eggplant Surprise” received a rating of - - - - -.
“Exploding Fork Bee Carbonara”, made by Josh, was rated - - - - -.
Ely, who served “Totally not ripped-off Surprise”, was given - - - - -.
Brendan’s final score with his “Inevitable Bouche” was - - - - - as well.
No other Cook was able to provide a legitimate Recipe.

There was talk of an “Gargantuan Massacre” when Mad-Tongue Moody stormed out of the restaurant.

Create a Sub-rule to rule Recipes, called “Plagiarism”:

A Recipe may not be composed of exactly the same Steps (in the same order) and Packages as another. Two different Recipes may not have the same name. Thus, the set of contents of a Recipe univocally correspond to the name of the Recipe.
As a clarification: a Recipe may be posted as a comment to the most recent Review (following the limitations set by rule “Review”) even though it has already been posted on a Review.

In the Rule “Ratings” replace the numerated list starting with “1. The Rating defaults to - - - - -.” with:

1. Entry Recipes are Rated sequentially in the order they were posted as comments to the Review.
2.The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
3. For each Valued Property of the recipe that is exactly equal to the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
4. For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.
5. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient and the Rating contains 4 or more Stars, set the Rating to * * * * *.
6. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient and the Rating contains at least one Plus, one Plus is changed to a Star.
7. If the Recipe does not have the Additional Property Vegetarian and the Reviewer is a Vegetarian, replace all but two Stars with Minuses.
8. If that Reviewer has already Rated that Recipe, the Rating to this instance of it becomes - - - - -.

To the rule “Equipment”, add:-

If a Cook possesses a piece of Equipment which has no effect (the “Mystery” Equipment), they may discard any single piece of Equipment they Possess to give the Mystery Equipment any legal effect. (This effect applies to all instances of that Equipment possessed by Cooks.) If a Cook possesses no Equipment, they may gain any ten pieces of Equipment, so long as each gained piece has no effect.

Remove all Equipment possessed by Cooks.

Remember to submit your Recipe to the most recent review! Due to a change in the rules, most of the submitted recipes are illegal.
Cook on!

In the Rule “Ratings” replace the numerated list starting with “1. The Rating defaults to - - - - -.” with

1. The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
2. For each Valued Property of the recipe that is exactly equal to the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
3. For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.
4. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient and the Rating contains 4 or more Stars, set the Rating to * * * * *.
4. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient and the Rating contains at least one Plus, one Plus is changed to a Star.
6. If the Recipe does not have the Additional Property Vegetarian and the Reviewer is a Vegetarian, replace all but two Stars with Minuses.

In the Rule “Ratings” change

1. The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
2. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient in an amount matching or exceeding the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot of that Ingredient, one minus is changed to a Star.
3. For each Valued Property of the recipe that matches the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
4. For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.
5. If the Recipe does not have the Additional Property Vegetarian and the Reviewer is a Vegetarian, replace all but two Stars with Minuses.

to

1. The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
2. For each Valued Property of the recipe that matches the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
3. For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.
4. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient, replace a Plus with a Star.
5. If the Recipe does not have the Additional Property Vegetarian and the Reviewer is a Vegetarian, replace all but two Stars with Minuses.

Amend rule reviews so that it reads as follows:

There are six Reviewers:

* Antonio Fusilli
* Bruce Haggis
* Chiaki Ramen
* Dominique Labaguette
* Esmeralda Paella
* Mad-Tongue Moody

Some Reviewers are Special. Reviewers who are not Special are Regular.
Each Reviewer has a Sweet Spot for each of the existing Valued Properties. A Sweet Spot is an integer comprised between 0 and 10 included. Each Reviewer may be Vegetarian. Each Regular Reviewer has one Favourite Ingredient, which is one of the Ingredients listed in rule Ingredients. All the characteristics of the Regular Reviewers (Sweet Spots, Vegetarianism, Favourite Ingredient) are fixed and they shall be kept track of by the Restaurant Manager, who should reveal them only when allowed by the Ruleset. If one or more of a Reviewer’s characteristics has not been determined yet, the Restaurant Manager may and should privately determine it using a method of their choice.
Mad-Tongue Moody is a Special Reviewer. His Characteristics are well known to the staff of every Restaurant in Town, and they are:
* All his Sweet Spots are 10
* He is not Vegetarian.

Create a new sub-rule to rule Review, and call it “Interviews”:

When posting a Review, the Restaurant manager should disclose one of the Characteristics (a single Sweet Spot, Vegetarianism, or Favourite Ingredient if appliable) of the next Reviewer. They should pick which characteristic to reveal at random among the characteristics they have not yet revealed this way.

Add after the first paragraph of “Recipes”:-

A Step is considered to add a quantity of a Package if it mentions the name and quantity of that Package; if the text of a Step also includes one (and only one) of the following verbs, then that Step has the corresponding effect when applied:

• Chop: If this Step would add any Spiciness to the Recipe, it adds one additional Spiciness.
• Reduce: If this Step would add any Umami to the Recipe, it adds one additional Umami.
• Drain: If this Step would add any Sweetness to the Recipe, it adds one less Sweetness.
• Sprinkle: If this Step would add any Sourness to the Recipe, it adds one less Sourness.
• Garnish: This Step does not affect the Valued Properties of the Recipe (but still affects Additional Properties).

In the rule “Review”, replace “The Restaurant Manager may not post a Review.” with:-

The Restaurant Manager may post a Review if one has not been posted in the previous 6 days.

Hello, I just registered for this blog and am interested in joining your game!  Yay!

If “Apple Pie from Scratch” failed, this proposal has no effect.

To the rule “Equipment”, add:-

If a Cook possesses a piece of Equipment which has no effect, they may give that Equipment any legal effect and lose any other piece of Equipment they Possess. (This effect applies to all instances of that Equipment possessed by Cooks.) If a Cook possesses no Equipment, they may gain any ten pieces of Equipment, so long as each piece has no effect.

Remove all Equipment possessed by Cooks.

If the Proposal “Too much avec in this one for my taste.” has not been passed, this does nothing.

In the Rule “Ratings”, change

The Restaurant Manager shall follow some set rules on how to determine the Rating based on the Recipe and on the Characteristics of the current Reviewer. These rules are:
* The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
* If the Recipe contains the Favourite Ingredient of the Reviewer, one minus is changed to a Star.
* For each Valued Property of the recipe that matches the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
* For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.

to

The Restaurant Manager shall follow some set rules on how to determine the Rating based on the Recipe and on the Characteristics of the current Reviewer. These rules are applied in the following order and are as follows:
1. The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
2. If the Recipe contains the Reviewer’s Favourite Ingredient in an amount matching or exceeding the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot of that Ingredient, one minus is changed to a Star.
3. For each Valued Property of the recipe that matches the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
4. For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.
5. If the Recipe does not have the Additional Property Vegetarian and the Reviewer is a Vegetarian, replace all but two Stars with Minuses.

In rule Review, change:

A rating is an Integer value that can be positive, negative or 0.

Each Cook may post Recipes as comments beneath the newest Review blogpost. The last such post of each Cook is called the Entry Recipe and is rated in the next Review.

Reviewers follow a set rule on how to determine the Rating based on the Recipe.

to:

Each Cook may post Recipes as comments beneath the newest Review blogpost. The last such post of each Cook is called the Entry Recipe and is rated in the next Review.

Create a new rule, “Ratings”:

A rating is a String comprised of exactly 5 characters, that can be any combination of plus signs (+), minus signs (-), or asterisks (*) (alias: Stars). Possible spacing and the order of characters in a Rating are irrelevant, and should be kept consistent between ratings (eg: by putting all the asterisks fist and all pluses at the end).

The Restaurant Manager shall follow some set rules on how to determine the Rating based on the Recipe and on the Characteristics of the current Reviewer. These rules are:
* The Rating defaults to - - - - -.
* If the Recipe contains the Favourite Ingredient of the Reviewer, one minus is changed to a Star.
* For each Valued Property of the recipe that matches the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Star.
* For each Valued Property of the recipe that exceeds the Reviewer’s Sweet Spot for that Valued Property, one minus is changed to a Plus.

In the rule “Review”, change the text

The Restaurant Manager may post a Review if there has not been a review in the past 6 days. He should do so within 8 days of the last Review.

to

The Restaurant Manager may not post a Review.

Repeal the rule “Opening Soon!”

Reword “Recipes” to:-

A Recipe consists of a name, a list of three to six Packages, and a list of between one and six Steps in sequence. A Step may either be: adding a quantity of one of the Package types listed in the Recipe, or using a piece of Equipment. The first step of a Recipe must always add a Package type.

Recipes have the same Valued Properties as Ingredients do. These are calculated by starting them all at zero, then applying the Recipe’s Steps in sequence. When a Step adds a quantity of a Package, it increases the Valued Properties of the Recipe by the Valued Properties of the Ingredient that corresponds to that Package, multiplied by the quantity being added. When a Step uses a piece of Equipment, the effect of that Equipment is applied to the Recipe (unless the Cook who posted the Recipe does not possess that piece of Equipment at this time). If a Step would reduce a Recipe’s Valued Property below zero, it instead becomes zero; if it would increase a Recipe’s Valued Property above 5, it instead becomes 5.

A Recipe has the Additional Property of Vegetarian until a Step causes a non-Vegetarian Ingredient to be added to it, at which point it ceases to be Vegetarian.

Replace the second paragraph of “Equipment” with:-

Each piece of Equipment may have an effect on a Recipe, listed in brackets after the item’s name (in both the list and the inventories) on the Cooking Equipment page. By default, a piece of Equipment has no effect. Valid effects are:-

• +X Property (where X is a number from 1 to 3 and Property is any Valued Property)
• -X Property (where X is a number from 1 to 3 and Property is any Valued Property)
• Property becomes zero (where Property is any Valued Property)
• Property is doubled (where Property is any Valued Property)

Remove “Consumables must be removed from a Cook’s list of Equipment when it is used in a Recipe or a Food Tasting.” from the ruleset, and add to “Review”:-

When the Restaurant Manager posts a Review, if any Cooks used Consumable Equipment in their Recipes, those Consumable Equipments are removed from those Cooks.

In the rule “Review,” after the text “A rating is an Integer value that can be positive, negative or 0.” add the text

The rating given to the most recent Entry Recipe to get a rating for each Cook is tracked in the GNDT under the category “Rating.”

The next Reviewer will be “Mad-Tongue Moody”.

The last Reviewer could not rate any Entry Recipes since there is none and there were none.

Create a new rule, “The Reviewers”:

There are five Reviewers:
-Antonio Fusilli
-Bruce Haggis
-Chiaki Ramen
-Dominique Labaguette
-Esmeralda Paella
Each Reviewer has a Sweet Spot for each of the existing Valued Properties. A Sweet Spot is an integer comprised between 0 and 10 included. Each Reviewer may be Vegetarian. Each Reviewer has one Favourite Ingredient, which is one of the Ingredients listed in rule Ingredients. All the characteristics of the Reviewers (Sweet Spots, Vegetarianism, Favourite Ingredient) are fixed and they shall be kept track of by the Restaurant Manager, who should reveal them only when allowed by the Ruleset.
If one or more of a Reviewer’s characteristics has not been determined yet, the Restaurant Manager may and should privately determine it using a method of their choice.

Create a new rule, “Fame”:

Each Cook has a “References” field, tracked as a string in the GNDT, consisting in the first letters of the names of the Reviewers that have ever awarded that Cook a 5-star rating.

Create a new rule, “Opening Soon!”:

The Restaurant Manager may not post Reviews.

I’ve re-enabled account creation on the BlogNomic wiki: any player can now create their own account. I’ve set up QuestyCaptcha with a simple question of “what’s the password you can see in the BlogNomic blog sidebar” - this password is only visible to logged-in blog users who’ve had their account approved, so should be sufficiently bulletproof.

(Confirming that wiki accounts with particular usernames actually belong to the same-named blog accounts is left as an exercise to the reader.)

Hi folks.  I’d like to join you in your fun.  :)

Repeal the rule “Food Tasting”. If any pieces of Equipment have Valued Property effects, remove those effects.

Add a new bullet point to the list in rule “Ingredients”:

- Rat Poison

Add these two bullet points to the list of additional properties in rule “Taste Buds”:

- Poisonous
- Antidote

Add to rule “Recipes”:

A Recipe has Additional Property Poisonous if it contains at least one Ingredient with Additional Property Poisonous, and no Ingredient with Additional Property Antidote.

Add to rule “Supply Chain”, if it exists:

The Restaurant Manager has never generated any Correspondences for Poison. If the Restaurant Manager has already determined Package-Ingredient Correspondences, they may and should create a correspondence between Poison and at most two Packages of their choice that do not contain any Ingredients with Additional Property Antidote. They may and should then immediately repeal this paragraph.

If the proposals “Stocktaking” and “You Say Tomato” have not passed, this proposal does nothing.

Add a new rule called “Supply Chain” with the following text:

Due to a mix-up in shipping, all the Ingredients currently being supplied to the restaurant are of foreign and mysterious origin. These are the labels on the Packages currently in the restaurant’s inventory:

• Shouting Man
• Coy Sun
• String Of Numbers
• The Bee
• Exploding Chair
• Girl On Bicycle
• Melted Cube
• Blushing Fork
• Shiny Shoes
• Boy With Hedgehog

Each type of Ingredient corresponds to at least one Package; more than one Package may correspond to the same Ingredient. The Restaurant Manager shall maintain a private list of these correspondences, which are fixed.

The Restaurant Manager has never generated a list of Package-Ingredient Correspondences. As soon as possible, the Restaurant Manager should generate and keep a private list of correspondences between Ingredients and Packages via a randomization method of their choice, ensuring that each Ingredient matches at least one Package. They may, and should, then immediately repeal this paragraph.

If the rule “Recipes” exists, reword it as follows:

A Recipe consists of a name and a list of three to six Packages. A recipe has Valued Properties according to the sum of the values of the Valued Properties of the Ingredients to which its Packages correspond.

A Recipe only containing Ingredients with the Additional Property Vegetarian has the Additional Property Vegetarian.

Replace “An Ingredients properties are fixed and known to the Restaurant Manager and may only be revealed to a Cook if the rules allow it.” with:-

An Ingredient’s properties are chosen by the Restaurant Manager, are fixed, and may be listed in brackets after their name in this list. (If an Ingredient has no properties listed, the Restaurant Manager should update this rule to include them.)

If necessary, revert the wiki page at http://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Cooking_Equipment to the version posted by Josh timestamped 09:37, 6 April 2015.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Equipment:

The wiki on the page entitled “Cooking Equipment” contains a list of types of Equipment that a Cook can possess, as well as the inventories of each Cook. Whenever a Cook acquires or loses a piece of Equipment, they must update this page accordingly.

A Cook can use up to three pieces of Equipment that they own in the composition of any Recipe they are making. Equipment used in this way affect the Valued Properties of the recipe after they are calculated from the base ingredients, as per the rule entitled “Recipes”, and can never make any Valued Property have an illegal value. The Valued Property effect of each piece of Equipment is tracked on the Cooking Equipment wiki page.

There are two types of Equipment: Utensils and Consumables. Consumables must be removed from a Cook’s list of Equipment when it is used in a Recipe or a Food Tasting. Consumables are denoted on the Cooking Equipment page by an asterisk next to their name.

Change the text of the rule entitled “Food Tasting” to read as follows:

If he or she has not done so in the last 48 hours, a Cook may send a Recipe or piece of Equipment (provided that it is in their inventory) as a personal message to the Restaurant Manager with the Subject “Food Tasting”. If the Cook has sent a recipe, the Restaurant Manager should reveal the Properties of the Recipe and the Rating it would receive by the next Reviewer before posting the next Review. If the Cook has sent a piece of Equipment, the Restaurant Manager need not act. The Cook can then add a single Valued Property effect to that piece of Equipment, where that effect must be a plus- or minus-1 modified to a single Valued Property.

Give each Cook a single piece of equipment at random.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Challenges:

All Cooks have two variables that are tracked in the GNDT, called Skill and Honour. Both variables must be numbers of zero or higher, and default to zero.

A Cook may challenge another Cook to a Cook-Off, by making a story post naming the challenged Cook and setting out the parameters of the Cook-Off as per this rule. A Cook may only issue a challenge to a Cook-Off if neither they nor the Cook being Challenged have participated in a Cook-Off in the preceding 48 hours, and if there is no more than one other Cook-Off under way at the time the challenge is made.

A Cook-Off challenge must name a single Cook and challenge them to create a recipe that has specified Valued Properties. The Cook so named then has 48 hours to post a recipe that has those Valued Properties. If the challenged Cook does not respond to the Cook-Off then any Cook may lower their Honour by 1.

Once the challenged Cook has responded to the Cook-Off, the Restaurant Manager should indicate whether or not the recipe meets the Valued Properties set out by use of the voting icons. If the Restaurant Manager indicates that the recipe meats the criteria then the challenged Cook may increase their Honour and Skill by 1 each, and the challenging Cook may increase their Honour by 1. If the Restaurant Manager indicates that the recipe did not meet the criteria then the Cook who made the initial challenge may post a recipe of their own, which the Restaurant Manager should assess in the same manner. If this second recipe is deemed to meet the criteria then the challenging Cook may increase their Skill by 1; if it does not then they must lower their Honour and Skill by 1 each.

Add a rule with the title “Ingredients” with the following text

Ingredients are items from the following list. An Ingredients properties are fixed and known to the Restaurant Manager and may only be revealed to a Cook if the rules allow it.
- Minced Meat
- Red Pepperoni
- Tomato
- Eggplant
- Sugar
- Lemon
- Potato

Add a rule with the title “Taste Buds” with the following text

Every Ingredient has the following Valued Properties with integer values from 0 to 5::
- Sweetness
- Sourness
- Umami
- Spicyness

An Ingredient may or may not have one or more of the following Additional Properties:
- Vegetarian

Add a rule with the title “Recipes” with the following text

A Recipe consists of a name and a list of Ingredients and their respective quantities, a positive Integer. A recipe has Valued Properties according to the sum of the values of the Valued Properties of its Ingredients times the respective quantity of the Ingredient.

A Recipe only containing Ingredients with the Additional Property Vegetarian has the Additional Property Vegetarian.

Add a rule with the title “Review” with the following text

The Restaurant Manager may post a Review if there has not been a review in the past 6 days. He should do so within 8 days of the last Review. A review is a Story Post that has the word “Review” in its title. In the Review he has to announce the name of the new Reviewer. He also has to announce how the last Reviewer rated the Entry Recipes of each Cook. A rating is an Integer value that can be positive, negative or 0.

Each Cook may post Recipes as comments beneath the newest Review blogpost. The last such post of each Cook is called the Entry Recipe and is rated in the next Review.

Reviewers follow a set rule on how to determine the Rating based on the Recipe.

Add a rule with the title “Food Tasting” with the following text

If he or she has not done so in the last 48 hours, a Cook may send a Recipe as a personal message to the Restaurant Manager with the Subject “Food Tasting” and the name of the Recipe. The Restaurant Manager should reveal the Properties of the Recipe and the Rating it would receive by the next Reviewer in an answer as fast as possible.

The hectic in the kitchen is organized - more or less. Every cook is rushing for ingredients, making recipes and nervously preparing the meals for the restaurant reviewer arriving later that week. The last trainee has burned all the recipes though and restaurant reviewers change every week. Trying to impress them will be hard.

Only the old Manager knows which ingredients go well together and which don’t.

Change “Townsperson” to “Cook” and “Astrologer” to “Restaurant Manager”. No Dynasty rules are kept.

My last DoV was failed at 29 Mar 2015 21:39:45 UTC. Since it is 03 Apr, 23:45 UTC as of now, the waiting period of 5 days after a failed DoV has ended.

My standing has increased to be the highest at 22:36 (UTC) of April 2nd, which is more then 24 hours ago. Since then, I have had a higher Standing then any other Townsperson. Also, my Standing right now is 5 or higher.

Therefore, I belive that I have legally achieved Victory and can legally declare this victory through this DoV.

Long have I dealt out the tarot cards. This is what they tell me. Obey these Predictions for your Birth Signs and you will gain fortune at the passing of the season.

The Eel
Distaff: Buy at least one Animal this summer.
Flax: Do not hold the job of Shepherd.
Spindle: Hold the job of Clerk.

The Bee
Distaff: Do not have a hearth in your home.
Flax: Hold the job of Farmer.
Spindle: Hold the job of Priest.

The Toad
Distaff: Gain at least one book this season.
Flax: Suffer the Plague in your home.
Spindle: Hold the job of Healer.

The Crossed Swords
Distaff: Have less furniture at the end of this season than you did at the beginning.
Flax: Do not hold the job of Smith.
Spindle: Do not die.

The Greater Triangle
Distaff: Do not hold the job of Builder
Flax: Have less meat at the end of this season than you did at the beginning.
Spindle: Have less money at the end of this season than you did at the beginning.

The Parapet
Distaff: Have at least one constellation from your birthsign visible in the sky.
Flax: Hold the job of Teacher.
Spindle: Have at least one animal in your house.

Follow these forecasts and the great wheel of fate is sure to look upon you with benevolent eyes.

Any admin, please idle me. Time is about to become a rare resource.

Autumn is over. The incoming Weather is Snow.

In the rule “Weather Consequences”, replace “If the Weather Conditions are Snow, a Townsperson with no Hearth may not change their Workplace to anything other than “Home”.” with:-

If the Weather Conditions are Snow, a Townsperson with no Hearth may not change their Workplace to anything other than “Home”, and any Townsperson may change the Workplace of a Townsperson with no Hearth to “Home”.