Saturday, January 19, 2019

Declaration of Victory: Fiscal Victory

“If an Attorney has a Valuation exceeding $100,000, more Valuation than every other Attorney, and an Integrity greater than 0, and is also the first Attorney to have met these criteria this dynasty, then that Attorney has achieved victory.”

Right now I have $118,007, which is a higher valuation than any other player. My Integrity is a respectable 6.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Proposal: Contra Bono

Replace “otherwise, the Fine is 0” with “otherwise, the Fine is $2,000”.

Given that prosecution/defence is assigned at random, it seems harsh that a winning defence lawyer doesn’t even get paid.

Proposal: Slush Hour

Times out/reaches quorum, 4-0. Enacted by pokes.

Adminned at 19 Jan 2019 13:50:57 UTC

In “Banking”, replace “As a weekly action, the Judge may post a blog entry announcing the number of Attorneys who have a Slush Fund greater than zero, and the size in dollars of the largest Slush Fund.” with:-

If they have not already done so in the current week, the Judge should post a blog entry announcing the number of Attorneys who have a Slush Fund greater than zero, and the size in dollars of the largest Slush Fund.

This optional rule has yet to be invoked.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Proposal: Digging deepest

Self-killed. Failed by pokes.

Adminned at 19 Jan 2019 13:48:09 UTC

In enacting this Proposal, consider it to have the same text as the Proposal titled “Digging deeper”.

Second time’s a charm, as they say.

Story Post: Case 38: Morgan v. Benjamin

In this Personal Injury case, Morgan claims to have been injured in a fight with Benjamin, who seems to love starting them.

Story Post: Case 37: Casey v. James

In this Unpaid Debt case, Casey wants some money from James to help cover some of the funeral expenses.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Proposal: Filibusterbuster

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 17 Jan 2019 10:21:21 UTC

In “Cases”, after “Within the comments of a Case, FOR icons represent solidly researched arguments and AGAINST icons represent underhanded tactics.” add:-

A comment on a Case is Relevant if it was made by an Attorney who represents one of the Case’s Plaintiffs, and if contains a voting icon which that Attorney has not already used in an earlier comment on that Case.

Replace “If nobody has posted a voting icon in a comment on the oldest Open Case in the previous 24 hours” with:-

If nobody has posted a Relevant comment to the oldest Open Case in the previous 24 hours

Proposal: Bad Advice

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 17 Jan 2019 10:17:44 UTC

Add a new bullet point before the last one in the second list in “Cases”:-

* If the Loser of the Case Mistrusts one or more of their Attorneys, then that Client ceases to be represented by those Attorneys

The Loose Floorboard

I wish to launder the sum of $52,523.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Proposal: No Switching Sides

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Jan 2019 16:44:48 UTC

Add to the subrule “Gaining and Losing” the following paragraph:

If an Attorney represents a client in an open case, they cannot take up the other client in that case.

This is a scam I tried to pull off with little success due to misunderstanding the rules. While it is currently legal, it probably shouldn’t be; therefore, I am attempting to submit a fix.

Proposal: Disbarment

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Jan 2019 16:37:51 UTC

In “Fiscal Victory”, replace:

If an Attorney has a Valuation exceeding $100,000, and more Valuation than every other Attorney,

with

If an Attorney has a Valuation exceeding $100,000, more Valuation than every other Attorney, and an Integrity greater than 0,

Proposal: Digging deeper

Reached quorum 5-0, enacted by Kevan and since Case 36 is still open “the rest of this Proposal has no effect”.

Adminned at 15 Jan 2019 16:36:57 UTC

If Case 36 has not been closed, the rest of this Proposal has no effect.

If Case 36 has been closed: In “Cases”, replace:

* For each Party in the Case whose Attorney made a comment on the Case’s blog post which included a FOR icon, decrease that Party’s Guilt for this Case by 2 (to a minimum of zero) and decrease that Attorney’s Money by $2,000 (to a minimum of zero).
* For each Party in the Case whose Attorney made a comment on the Case’s blog post which included an AGAINST icon, increase the other Party’s Guilt for this Case by 1 and decrease that Attorney’s Integrity by 1 (to a minimum of zero).

with:

* For each FOR icon within a comment on the Case’s blog post made by a Party’s Attorney, decrease that Party’s Guilt for this Case by 1 (to a minimum of zero). Decrease that Attorney’s money (to a minimum of zero) by n times $1,000 for the n-th FOR icon: $1,000 for the first FOR icon, $2,000 for the second FOR icon, and so on.
* For each AGAINST icon within a comment on the Case’s blog post made by a Party’s Attorney: if that Attorney’s integrity is above 0, increase the other Party’s Guilt for this Case by 1 and decrease that Attorney’s Integrity by 1.

Story Post: Case 36: State of Connecticut v. James

The courtroom is filled to the brim with prosecutors in this Burglary case. James Chamberlain is charged with illegal entry into the offices of Smith Group, a local real estate company, with the intent to snoop on details of their properties.

got some dirty clothes

This is a Laundering Post. I wish to launder $32,825.

Proposal: The immortal part of oneself

A quorum is not voting FOR, 2-3. Failed by pokes.

Adminned at 15 Jan 2019 12:14:20 UTC

Amend the list of Clients in “Clients” by setting the Reputation of each client to a random value.

The past few weeks have been rather proposal-dry. I’m trying to do at least something.

Silence in Court

Diabecko and Naught idle out after 9 and 8 days of inactivity respectively. Quorum drops to 3.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Story Post: Case 35: Goldberg Technology v. Morgan

In this Malpractice case, Goldberg Technology claims that Morgan (V) did a criminally poor job in his temporary stint replacing Morgan (IV) as CFO.

Story Post: Case 34: Benjamin v. Elizabeth

In this Malpractice case, Benjamin claims that Elizabeth made an error while preparing his taxes for him five years ago and wants to recoup the money he claims he lost to the IRS.

Friday, January 11, 2019

Story Post: Case 33: Goldberg Technology v. Benjamin

In this Personal Injury case, Goldberg Technology is accusing Benjamin Chamberlain of engaging in a fist-fight with some Goldberg executives outside their offices.

Story Post: Case 32: X Express v. Joshua

In this Personal Injury case, X Express is accusing Joshua Chamberlain of running a red light, striking one of X Express’ bike messengers.

Proposal: Hanlon’s Razor

Timed out 1 vote to 2. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Jan 2019 18:05:50 UTC

In “Cases”, remove “and decrease that Attorney’s Integrity by 2 (to a minimum of zero)”.

Throwing a case seems like enough of a drawback by itself, really.

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

Proposal: No Running in the Corridors

Timed out 3 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Jan 2019 12:48:23 UTC

In the first bullet list of “Cases”, add a new bullet point after the third:-

If either Party of the Case is represented by an Attorney who is already representing a Party in another Open Case, skip the rest of this atomic action

Limiting the Case generations so that if you’re already assigned to one open Case, you won’t also be assigned to the other. Seems better to keep as many players involved in the game as possible, on any given day.

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

Story Post: Case 31: X Express v. Mortis Maximis

In this Unpaid Debt case, X Express is attempting to recover payment from Mortis Maximis for a rush shipment of Matryoshka dolls.

Story Post: Case 30: Bananasoft v. Elizabeth

In this Defamation case, Bananasoft is accusing Elizabeth of going to the press and violating a gag order related to the Bloggsball incident litigated in cases 19 and 20.

Proposal: If Your Name’s Not Down

Timed out 2 votes to 2. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Jan 2019 09:11:19 UTC

To “Fiscal Victory”, add:-

An Attorney is Accredited if their name is Brendan, Diabecko, edelopo, Kevan, naught, pokes, Purplebeard, StripedMaple, Trigon or Zaphod; other Attorneys are not Accredited.

Replace “If an Attorney has a Valuation exceeding $100,000” with “If an Accredited Attorney has a Valuation exceeding $100,000”.

Curious as to how this will go down (and why we haven’t seen it proposed frequently in past dynasties, really): limiting victory to current players. If someone joins to play, they can ask to be added to the list. But if someone joins to try a scam which gives them money but not accreditation, they’re out of luck.

Sunday, January 06, 2019

Story Post: Case 29: Bananasoft v. Benjamin

In this Malpractice case, Bananasoft accuses Benjamin of misrepresenting his competence while doing some freelance work for the company.

Story Post: Case 28: X Express v. Elizabeth

In this case, X Express is following up on the absurdity of Case 16 and accusing Elizabeth of Malpractice this time in breaking the coffee maker.

Saturday, January 05, 2019

Proposal: Time Is Money

Timed out / quorumed 5 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Jan 2019 10:31:43 UTC

In Cases, replace “decrease that Party’s Guilt for this Case by 2 (to a minimum of zero)” with:-

decrease that Party’s Guilt for this Case by 2 (to a minimum of zero) and decrease that Attorney’s Money by $2,000 (to a minimum of zero).

There’s no real reason not to argue FOR on every case right now, the Slush Funds aren’t really worth it any more. Adding a small cost (which will be easily recouped by a win, but lost in a loss) might make that a more interesting decision.

Proposal: Proven Guiltier

Timed out 3 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Jan 2019 10:30:36 UTC

In “Cases”, replace “Assign an amount of Guilt for this Case to each of the Case’s Parties, where the amount chosen is a secretly random number between 0 and the Party’s Villainy.” with:-

Assign an amount of Guilt for this Case to each of the Case’s Parties: the amount chosen is a secretly random number between 0 and X, where X is the Party’s Villainy multiplied by 2.

Cases still seem a bit of a no-brainer - always hit FOR, then add an AGAINST if you think you’re both at zero. A wider spread of Guilt would give more room for bluffing and/or cutting a deal.

Friday, January 04, 2019

Proposal: A man as grand as he

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 06 Jan 2019 18:30:02 UTC

Create a new rule called “Character,” which contains the following:

Each Attorney has a Character, defaulting to “Practical,” tracked in the GNDT. Each Character has a Requirement, a condition which must be met before an Attorney can have that Character. If an Attorney fails to meet the Requirement of a Character they already have, they lose that Character and gain the “Practical” Character. Each Character also has Abilities, stated under the Character. If the Abilities of any Character contradict any Dynastic rules, the Abilities apply.

As a weekly action, an Attorney can gain a Character by updating the GNDT.

A list of possible Characters, along with their respective Requirements and Abilities, is as follows:

Respectable: Requirement: Have the highest Integrity of every Attorney. -OR- Have an Integrity of 10.
Abilities: When closing a Case, if a Party in the Case is represented by an Attorney with the “Respectable” Character, and that Attorney has made a comment on that Case which includes a FOR icon, decrease that Party’s Guilt by 3.

Immoral: Requirement: Have the lowest Integrity of every Attorney. -OR- Have an Integrity of 1 or less.
Abilities: When closing a Case, if a Party in the Case is represented by an Attorney with the “Immoral” Character, and that Attorney has made a comment on that Case which includes an AGAINST icon, increase the other Party’s Guilt by 2 and decrease that Attorney’s Integrity by 1.

Shrewd: Requirement: Have a Slush Fund greater than 0.
Abilities: When the Judge resolves a Laundering Post, if the Attorney who made the Laundering Post has the “Shrewd” Character, decrease that Attorney’s Slush Fund by the specified amount and increase their Money by 140% the amount.

Sociable: Requirement: Represent more than one Client.
Abilities: As a weekly action, an Attorney with the “Sociable” Character may gain a Client if they represent fewer than four Clients.

Practical: Requirement: Be an active Attorney.
Abilities: When closing a Case, if a Party is represented by an Attorney with the “Practical” Character, and that Party is determined to be the Loser of the Case, decrease that Party’s Worth by $1,000 and increase their Attorney’s Money by $1,000. This is resolved after the sixth step of closing a Case, but before the seventh step.

Take two for the Proposal I wanted to make. Language is fixed; now it should be about whether the rule actually works in the game.

Bunching Up

Am I missing an angle, or was Trigon choosing to represent Bananasoft on the 29th illegal? This company was already being represented by Zaphod, and a newly acquired Client “must not be a non-State Client who is already represented by any other Attorney”.

Friday, January 04, 2019

Story Post: Case 27: Elizabeth v. Mortis Maximis

In this Personal Injury case, Elizabeth is blaming Mortis Maximis for her passing out from overheating while in front of bright lights during the filming of the Chamberlain documentary.

Thursday, January 03, 2019

Story Post: Case 26: State of Connecticut v. Isabel

The entire town has packed the courtroom for this blockbuster murder case: the State has found evidence for charging Isabel with nothing less than the premeditated poisoning of one of her own father’s ex-wives, 10 years ago.

Tuesday, January 01, 2019

Proposal: [Appendix] The (whole) map is not the territory

Times out/reaches quorum, 4-0 (with 2 defs). Enacted by pokes.

Adminned at 04 Jan 2019 00:44:44 UTC

In “Gamestate Tracking”, replace

The GNDT merely represents the Gamestate, and is not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and the GNDT are different, any Attorney may correct the GNDT to comply with the Gamestate.

If an Attorney feels that the GNDT was altered such that it no longer matches the gamestate (such as by performing an action which was against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), or by any other means), they may simply undo the effects of that alteration. Instead of repeatedly reverting and re-reverting a disputed GNDT update, Attorneys are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgement instead. Attorneys shall be assigned a password for the GNDT when they join the Nomic.

with:

The GNDT and wiki merely represent the Gamestate, and are not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and its representations are different, any Attorney may correct the representations to comply with the Gamestate.

If an Attorney feels that a representation of the gamestate (such as the GNDT or the wiki) was altered such that it no longer matches the gamestate (such as by performing an action which was against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), or by any other means), they may simply undo the effects of that alteration. Instead of repeatedly reverting and re-reverting a disputed alteration, Attorneys are encouraged to raise a Call for Judgement instead. Attorneys shall be assigned a password for the GNDT when they join the Nomic.

I think we’d likely behave as if updates to the wiki are like GNDT updates in that illegal actions can be simply rolled back, but the Ruleset isn’t currently explicit about it.