[Review Board] An Instance of Insanity
Please authorise me, summai, the candidate for this review board.
Please authorise me, summai, the candidate for this review board.
Passes 6-1. Farewell. - Misty
Adminned at 02 May 2023 01:31:09 UTC
Add a new rule named “The Chopping Block” with the following text:
The game is in a state of Endgame Lockdown. While the game is in a state of Endgame Lockdown, no Proposal may be posted that proposes to make any changes to the dynastic ruleset except for those that make changes to the rules contained within the section named The Chopping Block; Additionally, no dynastic actions other than those listed in the section named The Chopping Block may be taken. All text in the dynastic ruleset not contained within the section named The Chopping Block are considered flavor text and cannot be part of any dynastic action.
We’re at an impasse with the the orphan variables CfJ. Any one of the Engineers that are also admins can enact the CfJ and then immediately take advantage of the situation to produce or have a proxy to produce a favorable outcome for themselves or their proxy. Additionally, we’ve had some dynastic actions taken while Engineers were aware that those actions were technically illegal, and it is questionable whether or not those actions should have been allowed during this time of awareness, or if the CfJ regarding orphan variables could make those actions legal and thus justify them being carried out illegally in the moment.
We’ve had stops and starts to this dynasty, but we’ve reached a point where the stakes are too high to start over. The goal is a two-step process: see if there’s agreement to stop all dynastic actions and changes to the dynastic rules. If this passes, the follow-up Proposal is to decide the split amongst Engineers. If it fails, we can try other means of continuing on, but with the knowledge that timing and further debate on legal and illegal actions may continue and may cause additional problems.
This is essentially a referendum on whether or not victory in this dynasty should be decided by a chop at this point. I’ve just learned that a “chop” is the BlogNomic slang for victory by dice roll, where the faces of the die contain Engineers’ names, but some Engineers will have more faces on the die than others based on some criteria that seems agreeable, referred to as the “slice” of the chop.
Timed out and failed, 3-4. Josh
Adminned at 02 May 2023 15:27:42 UTC
Uphold each action made in this dynasty that would otherwise have been legal had the variables known as the Building, the Building Number and the Building Stability been publicly tracked. Uphold that the values for those variables are what they would have been had those actions thus upheld been legal.
If Proposal: Construction Site Cleanup has not been enacted, add the following to the end of the first paragraph of the rule The Building:
The Building, the Building Number and Building Stability are all publicly tracked.
Withdrawn. Josh
Adminned at 02 May 2023 09:26:21 UTC
In the rule Review Board, as the following to the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph:
“and that there must be no other Review Boards that have closed within the preceding 72 hours with this Review Board’s Candidate as their Candidate.”
This is a resubmission of my previous Review Board, which was closed early by someone despite having gained significant support from the factory floor. I hereby recommend to AUTHORISE Kevan to work at the regulation Safety Check level.
Again, all support given on this will be reciprocated, minus the previous exceptions.
Since my last Review Board timed out, I, Taiga, would again like to be AUTHORISEd.
As before, I will respond with the desired response on any Review Board, as long as its Candidate is the same as its author.
Timed out 2 votes to 3. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 02 May 2023 08:39:43 UTC
Remove every instance of “in the Building” from the Ruleset, maintaining whitespaces according to normal English conventions.
Remove every instance of “of the Building” from the Ruleset, maintaining whitespaces according to normal English conventions.
In The Building, replace
The Building consists of an ordered collection of Levels arranged vertically, each of which contains a left-to-right ordered collection of exactly three Blocks (defaulting to three Empty Blocks). The Building also has a Building Number, which defaults to 0, and a Building Stability, which is an integer that defaults to 500. The Building is said be in critical condition if the Building Stability is less than or equal to 100.
with
The Levels of the Building is a publicly tracked and ordered collection of Levels, defaulting to 6 Levels. A Level is an ordered collection of Blocks, defaulting to 3 Blocks. The Levels of the Building is tracked as a table, with each row representing a Level, ordered bottom-up, and the cells in each row representing the Blocks of each Level, ordered left-to-right. Levels are assumed to belong to the Levels of the Building unless otherwise specified. Blocks are assumed to belong to a Level unless otherwise specified.
The Building Number is a publicly tracked non-negative integer, defaulting to 0. The Building Stability is a publicly tracked integer, which may be negative, defaulting to 500. We say the Building is in Critical Condition if the Building Stability is less than or equal to 100.
Cleaning up the Ruleset and addressing a few of my concerns before the potential Endgame Lockdown. I will Propose a series of short Proposals each related a minor part of the Ruleset to improve clarity and conciseness.
Timed out and failed, 1-3 with one unresolved DEF. Josh
Adminned at 01 May 2023 14:58:02 UTC
Add a new rule to the dynastic ruleset, called A Reverent Hush, with the following text:
If the current Building Number is 2 or less lower than the Final Building number then the game is in a state of Endgame Lockdown.
While the game is in a state of Endgame Lockdown, no Proposal may be posted that proposes to make any changes to the dynastic ruleset; any Proposal that contains such a provision that is posted while the game is in Endgame Lockdown is Unpopular, and cannot be made Popular by any means.
We’re approaching an endgame. Having reflected on yesterday’s discussions, I think that there’s a discussion to be had around how the game handles a presumptive leader in the endgame - which will doubtless be picked up in the post-dynastic washup. This is an attempt to split some of the difference, giving us all, in all probability, a few more days of tinkering with the rules before freezing the rules in place to let the endgame play out directly.
I, jjm3x3 am coming to you all hat in hand asking to be AUTHORISED. I will gladly respond with the desired response to all who put a review board up which names the same Engineer who made the author.
I, summai, am the candidate for this review board and request the support of all to be authorised. As someone who doesn’t have much at stake, I will support the authorisation of every candidate on every review board, regardless of the responses to this review board, unless there is a drastic change in the rules.
Timed out and failed, 1-2 wth 2 unresolved DEFs. Josh
Adminned at 30 Apr 2023 19:39:27 UTC
To the rule “Safety Checks”, add:-
If three or more Engineers each have more than a million Safety Checks, then any Engineer may remove the bullet point beginning “Optionally, spend Safety Checks to roll DICEN again and use that roll instead” from the rule “The Building”, if it exists.
Switching the rerolls off if we manage to get a couple of other Engineers into the millions, so that we can play the dynasty out closer to Jenga than pure timezone roulette.
We haven’t used this mechanic yet. Let’s see what it can do.
Following the Enactment of Access All Areas, I, Taiga, would like to be AUTHORISEd.
I will respond with the desired response on any Review Board, as long as its Candidate is the same as its author.
This is a Review Board recommending to AUTHORISE Kevan to work at the regulation Safety Check level. Operating at a zero risk level makes the work site much safer for everybody.
I will support the Review Board of any Engineer that supports this one, with a couple of exceptions that I’ll lay out in the comments.
Note that the two new players who recently had a Review Board pending will want to submit new ones, as somebody chose to close both of them prior to the Safety Check output being raised this morning.
Since I’m unlikely to achieve victory, I’m making myself available to make the Building more likely to Collapse, or even attempt to cause a Collapse, if anyone is interested in locking out their competitors from getting in an Inspection during the current Building Number. Hit me up in Discord to discuss the details.
I will not ask for or accept any favors for outside of BlogNomic, being passed the Mantle, or being made City Architect of the next dynasty, per the rules. Any other favors are on the table.
Having earned the first Accident, I’d like to ask for JonathanDark to be acquitted. My Safety Checks and Expertise are both low, so there’s really very little risk of me gaining much of an advantage against the other active Engineers at this point.
Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 28 Apr 2023 08:47:08 UTC
In the Appendix rule “Atomic Actions”, add the following bullet at the end of the bulleted list:
* If a dynastic action from another Engineer changed any gamestate that was referenced during the Atomic Action and was completed before the completion of the Atomic Action, the steps of the Atomic Action should be undone and repeated starting at the first step that referenced that gamestate.
Take the following situation. An Engineer “X” is performing an Atomic Action that says “subtract 10 from variable ABC if it greater than 10”. Engineer X completed this step and subtracted 10 from variable ABC, but there’s a later step that says “If ABC is greater than 5, add 100 to the Engineer’s Gold”, and Engineer X hasn’t performed this step yet.
Simultaneously, another Engineer “Y”, through a dynastic action that may or may not have been an Atomic Action, completes their action that winds up setting ABC to 0. Right now, the rules aren’t clear on what happens to variable ABC or Engineer X’s Gold. They only state that Engineer Y’s action would have occurred first, followed by Engineer X, but since they are affected by similar gamestate, the resolution of this is unclear.
This Proposal attempts to make the resolution more concrete.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 28 Apr 2023 08:30:50 UTC
In “Review Board”, replace “The Ending Condition for a Review Board is that it has been at least 48 hours since the Review Board was created and there has been at least 1 valid Response.” with:-
The Ending Condition for a Review Board is that it has been at least 48 hours since the Review Board was created, or that a number of Responses on it equal to Quorum included the same capitalised word from ACQUIT, AUTHORISE, DEMOTE or DISCIPLINE.
Per comments on Access All Areas, I think this is part of the reason why people are being slow to respond to the open Review Boards: there’s no reason to give an early response. Changing it so that it can be closed at a quorum of any given verdict.
Timed out 5 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 28 Apr 2023 08:29:33 UTC
In “Review Board”, replace “the number of Gaps plus 3 (if their current Safety Checks value is less than the number of Gaps plus 3)” with:-
the Building Number (if their current Safety Checks value is less than the Building Number)
Proposing to reverse the Safety Check Authorisation change from JonathanDark’s recent Work Permit proposal.
The Specialisation selection was a good idea given that action’s cost, but there was no reason to limit all but one player to a few dozen Safety Checks while a single outlier has seven million.
Now that we can have multiple Review Boards going, let’s allow summai to build as well.
Reached quorum and enacted, 6-0. Josh
Adminned at 25 Apr 2023 20:56:08 UTC
Reword the step of the Build action in the rule “The Building” that reads “Perform their Specialisation’s Bonus (if they have a Specialisation)” to read:
Optionally, if they have a Specialisation, perform their Specialisation’s Bonus
I don’t want us to suddenly realize that someone forgot their Specialisation and then have to recalculate the consequences of the next twenty builds that depended on it.
Reached quorum and enacted, 7-0. Josh
Adminned at 25 Apr 2023 20:54:58 UTC
In “Review Board”, replace “The Creation Conditions for a Review Board are that there must be no other Review Boards that are Open, and the body of the post must contain the name of exactly one non-idle Engineer whose Accident value is at least 1 or whose Safety Checks is a value below the current Building Number. The named Engineer is known as the Review Board’s Candidate.” with:-
The Creation Conditions for a Review Board are that the body of the post must contain the name of exactly one non-idle Engineer (known as that Review Board’s Candidate) whose Accident value is at least 1 or whose Safety Checks is a value below the current Building Number, and that there must be no other Review Boards that are Open with this Review Board’s Candidate as their Candidate.
Allowing multiple Review Boards to run concurrently, just one per player at a time.
Let’s give our newest players an opportunity to get into the game if they so choose, starting with Titanic
Reached quorum 6-0. Josh
Adminned at 25 Apr 2023 20:53:14 UTC
In the rule “The Building”, replace this text:
If no Build action has occurred in the previous 48 hours
with this text:
If the Building is not Collapsed, but neither a Build action nor a Move On action has occurred in the previous 48 hours
Summai is to be mentored by Kevan until the Third Dynasty of Misty has ended and the date is past the 21st of May 2023.
Timed out and failed, 1-3. Josh
Adminned at 25 Apr 2023 20:52:19 UTC
Add a term and definition to the rule “Keywords” under the heading “Other” as follows:
Variable
A variable is a persistently tracked element of gamestate—such as a number, a text string, a null value, or an element from a defined set—which may belong to an entity, such as a player, or may belong to the dynasty or the game itself.
This is my understanding of the term “variable,” as used in the context of Blognomic, and it is heavily influenced by my background in software. But not everyone brings the same assumptions I do to this game. Does this definition align with your own concept of the term? If not, I think we should try shaking out the differences.
Timed out and enacted, 7-1. Josh
Adminned at 25 Apr 2023 20:50:55 UTC
In Accidents, change
While an Engineer has zero or more Accidents
to
While an Engineer has one or more Accidents
👀
Hello Everyone,
This is a formal announcement expressing my intention to join this game as a player.
Timed out 5 votes to 4. Failed by Kevan as needing quorum to amend the Appendix.
Adminned at 24 Apr 2023 20:46:41 UTC
In “Numbers and Variables, replace “If a set of valid values is not specified in their definition, game variables defined to hold numeric values can hold only non-negative integers.” with:-
If a game variable is defined as holding a numeric value with no specified set of values, or an integer value without explicitly stating that this value may be negative, then that variable can only hold non-negative integers.
Reflecting on the recurring gotcha (as recently tripped?) that the term “integer” explicitly defaults to allowing negative values, and the appendix backs this up with no room to argue other language interpretations.
When players write the word “integer” in a rule, I get the impression they usually mean - and that it’s usually read as - “a round number, zero or higher”. Dynastic rules typically describe physical objects, or degrees of a quality, where a negative amount wouldn’t make sense and isn’t considered. In the rare cases when we actually want a variable to also allow negative values, that tends to get spelled out.
So maybe we should say that the term “integer” by itself defaults to being interpreted as non-negative unless otherwise specified.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 24 Apr 2023 08:53:24 UTC
In the rule “Review Board”, replace this text:
If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word AUTHORISE, set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the Building Number (if their current Safety Checks value is less than the Building Number)
with this text:
If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word AUTHORISE, set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the number of Gaps plus 3 (if their current Safety Checks value is less than the number of Gaps plus 3) and set the Specialisation of the Candidate to the one they name in their most recent Response (if they named exactly one Specialisation in their Response).
Now that the rules allow Engineers to Build if they have at least as many Safety Checks as there are Gaps, AUTHORISE should set their Safety Checks to this value, especially now that we have a new Engineer that should probably be AUTHORISE’d.
I added the “plus 3” so that someone doesn’t just Build right after, increasing the Gaps and shutting out the newly-AUTHORISE’d Engineer. I don’t think that’s too generous, because without this Proposal, it would be set to the Building Number, which is…a lot more…
Josh is now mentoring Titanic until the 3rd Dynasty of Misty has ended and it the date is past the 19th of May, 2023.
This is my post to state that I wish to become a player in the Nomic game.
Timed out / quorumed 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 24 Apr 2023 08:43:57 UTC
In the rule “The Building”, replace this text:
add the Risk of this Build to their Expertise
with this text:
add the greater of the Risk of this Build or 1 to their Expertise
In the rule “Demolition”, replace this text:
Replace the Block corresponding to the Block Number
with this text
Replace the Block whose Block Number matches the result of the dice roll from the preceding step
Now that Expertise is the WinCon, we need to look more closely at how it’s gained or lost. In previous Proposals, Engineers could control when Expertise was gained/lost by timing their Inspection. The recent changes are different in that Expertise is gained/lost in every Build, which means there’s a disincentive to perform the first few Builds because each Engineer who does so will lose Expertise, due to the number of Gaps being low and Building Stability being high. Risk will be a negative number. We’re stuck with no one wanting to Build unless we change that.
For example, right now the next Build will have -377 Risk at a minimum, unless the number of Gaps changes from something else like a Threat or Specialisation. No one is going to take that hit to their Expertise. Furthermore, to provide any incentive at all for a Build other than gaining Safety Checks, the Engineer should get a little bit of Expertise, the minimum positive value. This fits nicely into Taiga’s Proposal to multiply the Expertise gain in other situations.
The fix for Demolition is something I just noticed. The wording definitely needed clarification on which Block was being chosen for replacement.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 23 Apr 2023 10:26:49 UTC
To the bullet point in “Number and Variables” that begins “If a game variable has a default value but no defined starting value”, add:-
For the purposes of this bullet point, the names of Engineers are not considered to be legal values for game variables, nor for list items within game variables.
Per SingularByte’s suggestion on Yellow Pages. If we create a variable that refers to a player but neglect to specify a starting value, perhaps it should become an undefined orphan variable for us to fix, rather than defaulting to a particular player alphabetically.
Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 23 Apr 2023 10:25:29 UTC
Change the name of the Engineer called Taiga into 000000000Taiga.
Hi, I’d like to be known as 000000000Taiga from now on! See the Discord discussion for my motivation to do so. It’s better for me to do it sooner rather than later.
Timed out 5 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 23 Apr 2023 10:20:39 UTC
In "Safety Checks", change
If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, count the number of Gaps in the Building at that time and add this number to their Safety Checks.
to
If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, count the number of Gaps in the Building at that time and add this number to their Safety Checks. Then, increase their Expertise by the amount of Expertise they increased during the previous step.
and change
If the number of Gaps formed throughout the Building since the most recent Moving On is exactly 1, then optionally, they may choose to gain ten times the number of Safety Checks that they originally would have gained during this step. If they choose to do so, they may not Build again while the Building Number is the same as the current one.
to
If the number of Gaps formed throughout the Building since the most recent Moving On is exactly 1, then optionally, they may choose to gain 10 times the number of Safety Checks that they originally would have gained during this step and choose to gain Expertise equal to 50 times the number of Gaps in the Building. If they choose to do either, they may not Build again while the Building Number is the same as the current one.
In "Demolition", change
* If the Building is not Collapsed, the Demolisher adds the value of Boom to their Safety Checks.
to
* If the Building is not Collapsed, then the Demolisher adds the value of Boom to their Safety Checks, and gain 10 Expertise for each distinct Level below the top Level in the Building that had more than one non-Empty Block before the Demolition but has only one non-Empty Block after the Demolition.
Edit: Added Expertise benefits for the main branch of the Inspect action.
Reached quorum 5 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 21 Apr 2023 08:09:26 UTC
Add a new rule named “Expertise” and give it the following text:
Each Engineer has a publicly-tracked integer named Expertise that defaults to 0.
There is a publicly-tracked number named Final Building that defaults to 0.
Whenever the Final Building is greater than 0, if there is only 1 Engineer who has the highest Expertise when the Building Number equals the Final Building, that Engineer achieves victory.
If there are 2 or more Engineers who have the highest Expertise when the Building Number equals the Final Building, any Engineer or the City Architect may increase the Final Building by 3.
Replace the step of the Build atomic action in the rule “The Building” that begins with “If the Building is not Collapsed, add 1 to their Safety Checks…” with the following:
* Calculate the Risk of this Build, where Risk = N - Building Stability - F.
* If the Building is not Collapsed, add 1 to their Safety Checks and add the Risk of this Build to their Expertise; otherwise, add 1 to their Accidents.
* If at least 1 Engineer has an Expertise of at least 500, and the Final Building is 0, set the Final Building to the current Building Number plus 3.
For each Engineer whose EVC on this proposal contains the name of a single Specialisation, set the Specialisation of that Engineer to the one they so named.
Reached quorum 5 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 21 Apr 2023 08:06:24 UTC
In “Safety Checks”, add a full stop (a period) onto the end of every step of the Inspect atomic action.
Append onto the end of the last step of the Inspect atomic action, within the same bullet, which reads
If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, count the number of Gaps in the Building at that time and add this number to their Safety Checks.
the following sentence
If the number of Gaps formed throughout the Building since the most recent Moving On is exactly 1, then optionally, they may choose to gain ten times the number of Safety Checks that they originally would have gained during this step. If they choose to do so, they may not Build again while the Building Number is the same as the current one.
Inspired by Josh's early Inspection. I can see at least three reasons why this would come in handy:
Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 21 Apr 2023 08:04:45 UTC
In "The Building", change
If no Build action has occurred in the previous 48 hours
to
If the Building is not Collapsed, but neither a Build action nor a Move On action has occurred in the previous 48 hours
Make illegal all Review Boards that's Opened at the point of Enactment of this Proposal.
In "Review Board", change
The Creation Conditions for a Review Board are that there must be no other Review Boards that are Open, and the body of the post must contain the name of exactly one non-idle Engineer whose Accident value is at least 1 or whose Safety Checks is a value below the current Building Number.
to
The Creation Conditions for a Review Board are that there must be no other Review Boards that are Open, and the body of the post must contain the name of exactly one Engineer whose Accident value is at least 1 or whose Safety Checks is not the greatest amongst all Engineers.
and change
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word AUTHORISE, set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the Building Number (if their current Safety Checks value is less than the Building Number)
to
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word AUTHORISE, then set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the least Safety Checks that is strictly greater than their Safety Checks possessed by any other Engineers at the moment of Ending. If at the moment of Ending, the Candidate has the greatest Safety Checks amongst all Engineers, then instead, do nothing.
A less intrusive alternative to JonathanDark’s CfJ: we start by patching the scam. I think we’ll be fine as is right now. Just don’t make the victory condition related to the number of Safety Checks and we’ll be fine. Regarding rewarding Josh’s play, Josh still has the advantage of being the only person that can get a specialisation now.
Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 1 vote to 5 by Kevan.
Adminned at 22 Apr 2023 10:48:15 UTC
In the rule “The Building”, replace this text:
If no Build action has occurred in the previous 48 hours
with this text:
If the Building is not Collapsed, but neither a Build action nor a Move On action has occurred in the previous 48 hours
Set the Building Number to 3.
Set Josh’s Safety Checks to the average of the three highest Safety Checks among the other Engineers at the time of this enactment.
The Building itself doesn’t need to be reset because it was intended to allow a Move On after 48 hours of no Builds. That 1 instance of Move On and the subsequent Builds were within expectations. Instead, this resets the Building Number to what it should have been had only 1 Move On occurred, without needing to rewind a bunch of Wiki edits.
By setting Josh’s Safety Checks to be among the top 3, it recognizes his achievement and effort in the scam without unduly penalizing him, while also preserving the value of Safety Checks for everyone else.
Timed out 2 votes to 5. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 22 Apr 2023 10:47:32 UTC
By passage of this CfJ the player called Josh has achieved Victory in this dynasty.
So I’ve hard-locked the game by setting the building number to a number so high that only I can carry out any dynastic actions. It’s a fun scam but not currently directly Victory-enabled (yet, although I don’t expect the proposal that would plug it in to make it through til morning.)
However, the game can only proceed now if you unwind most of its existing mechanics and fools gold most of its existing resources. It’s a reset situation, and like Brendan’s victory in Habanero I, the argument here is simple: if we’re resetting the game then we should use the existing mechanism for dynastic resets.
Esteemed members of the board, I come to you helmet in hand with a humble request to be AUTHORISEd.
Lendunistus becomes idle after 7 days of inactivity. Quorum drops to 5.
Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 20 Apr 2023 10:44:52 UTC
If Safe as Houses was enacted, then in The Hardest Hat, change
Any Engineer who has more Safety Checks than all other Engineers combined has achieved Victory.
to
Any Engineer who has strictly more Safety Checks than half of the sum of the Safety Checks of all other Engineers has achieved Victory.
If Safe as Houses was not enacted, then add a new dynastic rule, called “The Hardest Hat”, which states the following
Any Engineer who has strictly more Safety Checks than half of the sum of the Safety Checks of all other Engineers has achieved Victory.
Somewhat more achievable. Still quite unrealistic in my opinion. Also addresses the fact that “all other Engineers combined” is ambiguous in what value is being combined.
Edit: Resolved the dependency of Safe as Houses.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 20 Apr 2023 10:43:23 UTC
In the rule “The Building”, add the following text:
If every Level of the Building except the two topmost Levels contains only one non-Empty Block, the Building is Finished, otherwise it is not Finished. While the Building is Finished, any Engineer can Move On.
Looking at the current Building state, the only choices left for swapping Blocks without causing a Collapse are the two on the third Level. Once one of those is swapped with an Empty Block on the topmost Level, there will be no Blocks that can be swapped without causing a Collapse. That moment seems like a good point to say that the Building is Finished and allow a Move On without having to wait for 48 hours, though we still need the 48-hour period in case no one is brave or active enough to get us to that point.
Timed out 1 vote to 2. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 20 Apr 2023 10:42:07 UTC
Add the following to the end of the last paragraph of the rule Building Contents:
If at any time more than half of the Blocks in the Building are Weakened then its Stability is immediately set to 0.
Timed out 2 votes to 4. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 20 Apr 2023 10:41:20 UTC
Add a new dynastic rule, called The Hardest Hat:
Any Engineer who has more Safety Checks than all other Engineers combined has achieved Victory.
Hello Review Board. The Candidate is me, Josh, and I would like to be AUTHORISEd, please.
Times out/passes 7-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 19 Apr 2023 22:33:51 UTC
Reword the text “Randomly select 3 Blocks and Weaken them” in the rule “Threat” to
Randomly select 3 non-Empty, non-Weakened Blocks and Weaken them
Right now Earthquakes seem to get less dangerous the more unstable the building is.
Times out/passes 6-1. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 19 Apr 2023 22:30:35 UTC
In the rule “The Building”, replace this text:
As a Daily Action, if the Building is not Collapsed,
with this text:
As a Daily Action, if the Building is not Collapsed, and there is no Demolition that is Open,
In the rule “The Building”, add a subrule named “Block Numbers” and give it the following text:
Blocks in the Building are numbered from left to right starting at the Level below the topmost Level, then continuing left-to-right on the Level below, until the rightmost Block is numbered on the bottommost Level. The numbering begins with 1 and continues with the next Natural number. This number for each Block is the Block Number.
The number of Blocks in the Building not counting the Blocks in the topmost Level is called the Structure.
Add a new rule named “Demolition” and give it the following text:
A Demolition is a type of Event. The Creation Conditions for a Demolition are the following:
* There must be no other Demolition that is Open
* The Building Stability must be 100 or less
* The Engineer creating the Demolition must meet the criteria for performing a Build
* It has been at least 48 hours since the Engineer creating the Demolition created a prior Demolition,unless this is the Engineer’s first creation of a DemolitionThe Response Format for a Demolition is a comment that satisfies all of the following conditions:
* The comment contains the phrase “I wager X”, where X is a number between 1 and the Structure
* The Engineer posting the comment has at least X Safety Checks
* The X in this Response is larger than the X in the most recent valid Response, unless this is the first valid ResponseThe Ending Condition for a Demolition is that it has been at least 48 hours since the Demolition was created.
The Ending Action for a Demolition is an atomic action with the following steps, which must be performed by the Engineer who posted the most recent valid Response. In these steps, the Engineer with the most recent valid Response is the Demolisher, and the value of X in their most recent Response is the Boom:
* If there are not at least 2 different Engineers who have posted valid Responses in this Demolition, skip the remaining steps and end the Demolition. Otherwise, perform the two sub-steps below Boom times or until the Building is Collapsed, whichever comes first.
* * Roll DICEN, where N is the current Structure
* * Replace the Block corresponding to the Block Number with an Empty Block, unless the Block is already an Empty Block
* If the Building is not Collapsed, the Demolisher adds the value of Boom to their Safety Checks. Otherwise, they add the value of Boom to their Accidents.
If this text is in the rule “The Building”:
If no Build action has occurred in the previous 48 hours, then any Engineer can Move On.
replace it with this text:
If no Build action has occurred in the previous 48 hours, and there is no Demolition that is Open, then any Engineer can Move On.
Another idea for gaining something valuable by taking a risk when the Building Stability is low.
Passes 6-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 18 Apr 2023 19:08:57 UTC
Before the paragraph beginning “Move On is an Atomic Action” in “The Building”, add a paragraph:-
If no Build action has occurred in the previous 48 hours, then any Engineer can Move On.
Passes 6-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 17 Apr 2023 20:38:07 UTC
Delete the post that was assigned the URL https://blognomic.com/archive/critical_condition_chaos.
Messed up the time, now it’s a 404.
Edit: I sincerely apologise for tampering with the Proposal’s Entry Date (violating the rules of Fair Play). However, I do believe that post is still legal because I couldn’t find any other rules in the Ruleset that the creation and editing of the post violated. Hence, referring to the Appendix (“an official post may only be removed as allowed by the Ruleset”), I am requesting the deletion of that still-active proposal through this CfJ.
Times out 3-0 with 2 unresolved DEFs. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 18 Apr 2023 19:06:33 UTC
If the Proposal “New Frameworks” passes, then this Proposal has no effects.
In “The Building”, at the end of the first paragraph, which ends in “... which is an integer that defaults to 500”, append the following sentence
The Building is said be in critical condition if the Building Stability is less than or equal to 100.
In the “Build” atomic action, after the end of whichever bullet starting with “Spend any amount of Focus”, append the following sentence within the same bullet
If the Building is in critical condition, the amount of Focus spent may not be more than T, where T is the most recent amount of Focus spent by any Engineer while the Building is in critical condition and the Building Number is the same as the current one.
Addressing the idle status of the current Building. People are not taking risks because they can choose not to. The idea is that if people are forced to take risks, they’ll be willing to take more. As the number of Gaps in the Building is strictly increasing, the risk involved will be increasing by at least 25 points of Stability in the dice roll for each Build during critical condition.
Times out/passes 7-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 18 Apr 2023 19:05:31 UTC
To the rule “Accidents”, add a paragraph:-
While an Engineer has zero or more Accidents, any effect that would cause them to achieve victory instead does not do so. An Engineer who has a Specialisation may lose that Specialisation to reduce their Accidents by 1.
The central dilemma of “do I pull a block to gain a Check, with a risk of causing an Accident” can’t be weighed very meaningfully while the impact of Accidents is undefined - is an Accident no big deal (we might never enact a downside), or is just a single one a game-losingly bad millstone (we might propose a very bad consequence for them, but only after a cavalier outlier has decided to take one)? Attempting to pin this down.
Times out 7-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 18 Apr 2023 19:03:01 UTC
Reword the text “As a Daily Action, if the Building is not Collapsed, an Engineer with at least as many Safety Checks as the current Building Number may Build” in the rule “The Building” to
As a Daily Action, if the Building is not Collapsed, an Engineer who has at least as many Safety Checks as there are Gaps, or at least as many Safety Checks as the current Building Number, may Build
The stated intention behind the originally Safety Check floor rule was to prevent new or inactive players from collapsing the building, but that’s not how it actually functions, since the Building Number is unrelated to its actual stability. If we want to just stop people from knocking the tower over arbitrarily, then it makes more sense to connect the limit to whether the building is actually unstable.
Times out 1-3. Failed by Brendan.
Adminned at 17 Apr 2023 20:33:32 UTC
If “Risk Management” or “Safety Dance” passes, this proposal does nothing.
In “The Building”, change
The Building also has a Building Number, which defaults to 0, and a Building Stability, which is an integer that defaults to 500.
to
The Building also has a Building Number, which defaults to 0.
From the “Build” Atomic Action, delete the bulletpoints starting with “If they do so, and the Material has the..”, “If the Block that was swapped with…” “Spend any amount of Focus…” and “Decrease Building Stability…”
change
If Building Stability is 0 or lower, or if any Level of the Building below the topmost Level consists entirely of Empty Blocks, then the Building is Collapsed; otherwise, the Building is not Collapsed.
to
If any Level of the Building below the topmost Level consists entirely of Empty Blocks, then the Building is Collapsed; otherwise, the Building is not Collapsed.
change
Set Building Stability to its default value and the Building to be six Levels, each of which contains three Wooden Blocks
to
Set the Building to be six Levels, each of which contains three Wooden Blocks
In “Threat”, change
As a Weekly Communal Action, an Engineer or the City Architect may Trigger, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
to
If a Build has not been performed within the last 24 hours, as a Daily Communal Action, an Engineer or the City Architect may Trigger, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
A *very* bold move, but this Stability thing really doesn’t seem to be working.
Times out 5-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 17 Apr 2023 20:30:47 UTC
If the proposal “Risk Management” has been enacted then this proposal has no effect. Otherwise, replace the steps of the Build atomic action that begin “Spend any amount of Focus (which may be 0 Focus)...” and “Decrease Building Stability by the result…” with the following:
* Spend any amount of Focus, F (which may be 0 Focus), to roll DICEN, where G is equal to the number of Gaps in the Building, and N = G x 25; the result of the roll is W.
* Optionally, spend Safety Checks to roll DICEN again and use that roll instead; this step may be repeated, but the amount that must be spent goes up each time. This cost starts at 3 Safety Checks for the first reroll and increases by 1 for each repetition during a given instance of the Build action. The result of the final such die roll becomes W.
* Decrease Building Stability by W - F, but if W - F is less than 0, then instead, do not decrease Building Stability.
I like the Risk idea generally, and Safety Checks make sense as a currency that helps manage it but doesn’t have a fixed exchange rate. I’d be fine with a different SC cost or, eg, a cost that increases with each reroll.
I’m idling out
Timed out 4 votes to 0 with no effect as Risk Management was withdrawn. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 17 Apr 2023 08:26:59 UTC
If “Risk Management” is not enacted, this Proposal has no effect.
At the time of the enactment of this Proposal, determine the highest value of Safety Checks among all non-Idle Engineers, subtract 10 from this value, and call the result the Baseline. For each Engineer whose Safety Checks are at least equal to the current Building Number but less than the Baseline, set that Engineer’s Safety Checks to the Baseline.
This allows active Engineers like Brendan to catch up without diminishing the work done by the front-runners to be where they are. Being behind the front-runner by 10 Safety Checks is about an Inspection’s worth.
Withdrawn. Failed by Brendan.
Adminned at 16 Apr 2023 16:06:33 UTC
Add a new rule named “Expertise” and give it the following text:
Each Engineer has a publicly-tracked integer named Expertise that defaults to 0.
There is a publicly-tracked number named Final Building that defaults to 0.
Whenever the Final Building is greater than 0, if there is only 1 Engineer who has the highest Expertise when the Building Number equals the Final Building, that Engineer achieves victory.
If there are 2 or more Engineers who have the highest Expertise when the Building Number equals the Final Building, any Engineer or the City Architect may increase the Final Building by 3.
In the rule “The Building”, replace these bullets in the Build atomic action:
* Spend any amount of Focus (which may be 0 Focus) to roll DICEN, where F is the amount of Focus spent, G is equal to the number of Gaps in the Building, and N = G x 25 - F. If N would be less than 0 then this step cannot be completed.
* Decrease Building Stability by the result of the die roll in the preceding step.
with these bullets:
* Choose any amount of Focus between 0 and their current Focus. Roll DICEN, declaring in the roll description the Focus being spent, where G is equal to the number of Gaps in the Building, and N = G x 25.
* Track the Risk of this Build action using the value of N from the preceding step, F is the focus spent in the preceding step, and Risk = N - Building Stability - F.
* D is the result of the dice roll from the preceding steps, F is the Focus spent in the preceding steps, and S = D - F. If S is greater than 0, decrease Building Stability by S.
In the rule “Safety Checks”, replace this bullet in the Inspection atomic action:
* If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, count the number of Gaps in the Building at that time and add this number to their Safety Checks
with these bullets:
* If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, perform the Passing Inspection atomic action:
* If at least 1 Engineer has an Expertise of at least 500, and the Final Building is 0, set the Final Building to the current Building Number plus 3
Add a subrule titled “Passing Inspection” to the rule “Safety Checks” and give it the following text:
Passing Inspection is an atomic action which can only be performed when explictly instructed to do so in the Inspection atomic action. The Engineer who performs it executes the following steps:
* Count the number of Gaps in the Building at that time and add this number to their Safety Checks
* Add the Risk of the Build completed during this Inspection to their Expertise
* Optionally, subtract any positive amount of their Safety Checks that would reduce it to no less than 0 and add this amount to their Expertise
With this Proposal, you still earn Safety Checks by the Gaps that were present when you performed the Inspection, but you can now spend any amount of Safety Checks towards Expertise. However, you can also earn Expertise through Risk. The potential gain from Risk is higher, but that’s because you’re taking a risk. Safety Checks is somewhat safer but is a lower fixed gain each time. Everyone who has spent the time to gain their Safety Checks so far will still find them useful towards winning.
The use of Building Number gives everyone the rest of the current Building Number plus two more full Building Numbers to catch up. This will be 2-3 Inspections, or more if there are ties, depending on the timing of the first person to hit the Expertise threshold.
If you like the overall mechanic, but don’t like specific numbers, let’s tweak the numbers, rather than rejecting the whole thing.
Times out/passes 6-0 with 1 unresolved DEF. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 16 Apr 2023 16:05:42 UTC
Increase the Safety Checks of the Engineer named Brendan by 6.
If I’d set my Specialisation (during Building 0) under the current rules, it would have cost me 3 instead of 9 SCs. I don’t think I’ve gained any early-mover advantage that justifies my being the only player to pay that cost.
Times out 4-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 16 Apr 2023 16:03:39 UTC
Replace “The Response Format for a Review Board is a comment containing a single voting icon of FOR or AGAINST as defined by the Voting Icons keywords.” in “Review Board” with:-
The Response Format for a Review Board is a comment containing one or more of the following capitalised words: ACQUIT, AUTHORISE, DEMOTE and DISCIPLINE. If an Engineer has made multiple Responses to a Review Board, all but the most recent of their Responses to that Review Board are ignored during its Ending Action.
To the end of the first paragraph of the rule, add:-
The named Engineer is known as the Review Board’s Candidate.
Change the definition of the Ending Action in that rule to:-
The Ending Action for a Review Board is an atomic action with the following steps performed in reference to its Responses, and applied to the Candidate of that Review Board:-
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word AUTHORISE, set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the Building Number (if their current Safety Checks value is less than the Building Number)
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word DISCIPLINE, decrease the Safety Checks of the Candidate by their Accidents
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word DEMOTE, remove the Candidate’s Specialisation
* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word ACQUIT, set the Candidate’s Accidents to zero
Finally, change “24 hours” in that rule to “48 hours”.
I realised after voting on the open Review Board that FOR actually means “punish this player”. Which doesn’t make any difference in this case - Taiga has no Accidents or Specialisation - but maybe Review Boards should be clearer about what is and isn’t being voted on.
And with some active players taking more than 24 hours to respond to proposals, let’s go to a full 48 hour quorum.
Per the rules after the enactment of “No Hat, No Boots, No Job”, Taiga will not be allowed to Build because their Safety Checks are less than the current Build Number.
Since Taiga is new, I’m posting this Review Board to allow Taiga to continue to Build. A vote in favor will set Taiga’s Safety Checks to the current Build Number, per the rules, which will allow them to Build.
Note that Taiga is allowed to vote as well, and so am I, as creating this post does not count as a vote.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 14 Apr 2023 15:44:13 UTC
In “Threat”, change the bullet point
* Randomly select a Disaster and add its name to the Threat. Repeat this step until the list has three items.
to
* Randomly select a Disaster and append its name to the Threat. Repeat this step until the list has three items.
Right now you can deliberately plan certain disasters before others…
Timed out 2 votes to 4. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 14 Apr 2023 15:41:48 UTC
Delete the rules “The Quarry” and “Builder’s Exchange.” Delete the list items for Carpenter, Decorator, and Logistician from the rule “Specialisation.” Delete from the rule “The Building” the bullet point that begins “If they do so, and the Material has the Supportive Property…” Rewrite the rule “Building Contents” as follows:
The possible building contents for The Building, known as Materials, are listed in the table below. The ruleset may refer to a given Material using either its Name or Abbreviated Name - they are considered equivalent. The Description is flavour text. Each Material may have Properties, as determined by the table below.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name || Abbreviated Name || Description || Properties
|-
| Empty || _ || This represents open space. ||
|-
| Wood || W || A reliable building material. ||
|}A Block may have the condition of Weakened, defaulting to not Weakened. A Block that is Weakened is tracked by formatting the Abbreviated Name of its Material in italics. Empty Blocks are always not Weakened.
Rewrite the last item in the list from the rule “Specialisation” as follows:
* Supervisor: Either change one non-Weakened Block in the Building to Weakened, or change one Weakened Block in the Building to non-Weakened
Delete from the rule “The Building” the step of the Move On action that begins with “If the Quarry has at least…”
If there are any Engineers who had the Specialisations Carpenter, Decorator, Logistician, or Stonemason before this proposal was enacted, change each of their Specialisations to Supervisor. If there are any Stone or Rebar Blocks in the Building, change those Blocks to Wood.
It’s unclear to me whether the Stone/Rebar rules provide any edge in gameplay, and they certainly aren’t seeing much use. If what we want is effectively a value of Weakened that can be assigned to certain blocks, let’s just streamline this system to do that.
Passes 6-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 13 Apr 2023 23:27:29 UTC
In “The Building”, replace the “Choose a non-Empty Block that is not in one of the three topmost Levels of the Building, and swap that Block with an Empty Block on the topmost Level.” bulletpoint in the Build atomic action with the following:
Choose a non-Empty Block that is not in one of the two topmost Levels of the Building, and swap that Block with an Empty Block on the topmost Level.
Might be a bit frivolous, but I do think we’re locking up too many of our Blocks in the top levels.
Passes 6-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 13 Apr 2023 23:24:55 UTC
In “The Building”, replace the last two bulletpoints of the Build atomic action with the following:
If the Building is not Collapsed, add 1 to their Safety Checks; otherwise, add 1 to their Accidents
Rules patch.
Taiga is now being mentored by Brendan until the 3rd Dynasty of Misty has ended and the date is past the 10th of May, 2023
Hello, I’m Taiga! I would like to join the game and become a player here! In the meantime I’ll go read the current ruleset.
Withdrawn. Failed by Brendan.
Adminned at 13 Apr 2023 23:12:20 UTC
Add a new rule named “Expertise” and give it the following text:
Each Engineer has a publicly-tracked integer named Expertise that defaults to 0.
There is a publicly-tracked variable named Performance Review that defaults to empty.
Whenever the Performance Review contains a date and time, if there is only 1 Engineer who has the highest Expertise at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review, that Engineer achieves victory.
If there are 2 or more Engineers who have the highest Expertise at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review, any Engineer or the City Architect may add 48 hours to the date and time in the Performance Review.
In the rule “The Building”, add the following text to the end of the bullet that begins with “Spend any amount of Focus”
Track the Risk of this Build action where Risk = N - Building Stability.
In the rule “Safety Checks”, replace this bullet:
* If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, count the number of Gaps in the Building at that time and add this number to their Safety Checks
with these bullets:
* If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, add the Risk of the Build completed during this Inspection to their Expertise
* If at least 1 Engineer has an Expertise of at least 100, and the Performance Review is empty, set the Performance Review to the current date and time rounded down to the nearest minute
For each Engineer who does not have a Specialisation and whose Safety Checks are at least equal to the Building Number, set their Safety Checks to 10.
For each Engineer who has a Specialisation, set their Safety Checks to 7 minus the value of the Building Number at the time that they most recently set their Specialisation.
Another attempt at WinCon. This time, victory is tied to the amount of risk you take when you Build during an Inspection. Safety Checks become only currency for setting Specialisation. Resetting every active Engineer’s Safety Checks ensures a fair start if they are only gained 1 at a time from a successful Build.
Expertise is an integer and can go negative. If you play it too safe during an Inspection, you get penalized.
Timed out 5 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 13 Apr 2023 16:59:23 UTC
In “The Building”, replace “an Engineer may Build” with:-
an Engineer with at least as many Safety Checks as the current Building Number may Build
To the end of the atomic action in “Review Board”, add a bullet point:-
* If the Engineer has fewer Safety Checks than the current Building Number, set their Safety Checks to the Building Number.
And in that rule, replace “whose Accident value is at least 1” with:-
whose Accident value is at least 1 or whose Safety Checks is a value below the current Building Number
Regulating access to the block pulling zone so that new or minimally-active players can’t blunder in at a critical moment, and giving the Review Board the ability to authorise permission.
Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 12 Apr 2023 14:42:08 UTC
Add a new rule named “Performance Review” and give it the following text:
There is a publicly-tracked variable named Performance Review that defaults to empty.
Whenever the Performance Review contains a date and time, the Engineer who has the highest Safety Checks at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review achieves victory.
If there are 2 or more Engineers who had the highest Safety Checks at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review, any Engineer or the City Architect may add 48 hours to the date and time in the Performance Review.
In the rule “Safety Checks”, add the following bullet at the end of the steps for the Inspection atomic action:
* If at least 1 Engineer has a Safety Checks of at least 100, and the Performance Review is empty, set the Performance Review to the current date and time rounded down to the nearest minute
First attempt at a WinCon. At the rate that Engineers are earning Safety Checks, this gives us a few weeks before someone will hit the threshold. Once they do, there’s still some time to fight it out for first place. Ties are also handled.
Reached quorum 6 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 12 Apr 2023 14:39:59 UTC
In “The Building”, replace whichever bullet point contains the phrase “odd number” with:
* Optionally choose a Block that is both Weakened and orthogonally adjacent to the previous location of the Removed Block, and replace the chosen Block with an Empty Block.
Replace “Choose a non-Empty Block that is not in one of the three topmost Levels of the Building” with:-
Choose a non-Empty Block (known as this action’s Removed Block) that is not in one of the three topmost Levels of the Building
Knocking out a secondary, precarious piece should perhaps require physical contact from the block you’re moving, rather than being possible at distance anywhere on the tower. This will also sometimes make it a tricky enough decision that we won’t need the 50-50 possible/impossible die roll.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 12 Apr 2023 13:56:33 UTC
Delete the three consecutive steps in the Build atomic action that begin with the step “Spend any amount of Focus” and replace them with the following:
* Spend any amount of Focus (which may be 0 Focus) to roll DICEN, where F is the amount of Focus spent, G is equal to the number of Gaps in the Building, and N = G x 25 - F. If N would be less than 0 then this step cannot be completed.
* Decrease Building Stability by the result of the die roll in the preceding step.
Delete the step of the Build atomic action that reads “If the Level of the Block that was swapped with the topmost Level now contains 3 Empty Blocks, decrease Building Stability by 50”
If the proposal “The Weakest Link” was enacted, then reword the step of the Build action that begins “If the Wobble before subtracting Focus was an odd number…” to read as follows:
* If the amount that Building Stability decreased in the preceding step was an odd number, and there are any Weakened Blocks, then choose any one Block that is Weakened and replace it with an Empty Block.
The only effective change to the current process in this rewrite is that it moves the subtract-Focus-spent step to before the roll instead of after. But there are some glaring holes in the current wording—what does the “times 25” clause modify? What about “to a minimum of zero”—does it refer to the Wobble or the amount of Focus spent? Which of the foregoing Build steps could “the step above” refer to? Why do we need the term Wobble at all?
Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 2 votes to 6 by Kevan.
Adminned at 12 Apr 2023 13:52:52 UTC
Update the Rule Threat to be called “Monumental Moments”. Then replace every instance of Threat with “Monumental Moments”. Replace every instance of Disaster with Moment.
Update first bullet of the communal action to read as follows:
* Carry out the Effect of the Moment corresponding to the non-blank, left most item in the Monumental Moments and remove that Moment from the Monumental Moments. Repeat this step until the Monumental Moments is blank.
Add a bullet point to the end of the list consisting of:
* Create a Story Post describing the results of the Monumental Moments action
Add the following rows to the table:
| Kaiju Attack || Set the building’s stability to 0 and increase the accidents of the last engineer who performed the build action by 1 || OH NO It’s a large lizard or big moth or monkey or something |
| Stroke of Ingenuity || Randomly select 5 blocks which are _ and change their contents to Rebar || Wow we should have thought of that sooner |
| Performance Bonus || Increase the Safety Checks of the last engineer who performed the build action by 10 || Hey good on ya! You benefit from a recency bias in the workplace |
Reworking Threat a bit to give folks a reason to trigger it, in addition i am attempting to address what looked like an infinite loop in how Threat would have been processed.
Reached quorum 6 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 11 Apr 2023 16:38:42 UTC
In the subrule “Building Contents”, add the following text:
A Block may have the condition of Weakened, defaulting to not Weakened. A Block that is Weakened is tracked by formatting the Abbreviated Name of its Material in italics. Empty Blocks are always not Weakened. A Block that is Weakened is changed to not Weakened whenever the Material of the Block is changed (swapping a Block with another Block is not considered changing the Material for either Block for the purposes of this rule, but replacing the Block with another Block of the same Material is considered changing the Material for the purposes of this rule).
In the rule “The Building”, add this bullet after the bullet that begins with “Decrease Building Stability by the Wobble”:
* If the Wobble before subtracting Focus was an odd number, choose any one Block that is Weakened, if there are any such Blocks, and replace it with an Empty Block.
50-50 chance of a Weakened Block turning into an Empty Block with each Build
Reached quorum 6 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 11 Apr 2023 11:24:19 UTC
Add a new rule named “Builder’s Exchange” and give it the following text:
Each Engineer has an amount of Rebar which is publicly tracked and defaults to 0.
At any time, if a Builder has at least 10 Stone, they may subtract 10 from their Stone and add 1 to their Rebar.
A source of Rebar other than being a Decorator
Reached quorum 6 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 10 Apr 2023 11:10:25 UTC
Reword the text “If Building Stability is 0 or lower, then the Building is Collapsed” in the rule “The Building” to read
If Building Stability is 0 or lower, or if any Level of the Building below the topmost Level consists entirely of Empty Blocks, then the Building is Collapsed
This has gone on long enough, I think.
Reached quorum 6 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 10 Apr 2023 11:09:05 UTC
Repeal the rule “Integrity”.
In the rule “The Building”, after the bullet that begins with “Optionally, by spending 1 from any of their Materials”, add the following sub-bullet:
* * If they do so, and the Material has the Supportive Property, increase Building Stability by 25. Decrease Building Stability by 25 if the Material has the Heavy Property and the Block is not on the bottommost Level.
and after the bullet that begins with “Choose a non-Empty Block”, add the following bullets:
* If the Block that was swapped with an Empty Block contains a Material with the Heavy Property, decrease Building Stability by 25
* If the Level of the Block that was swapped with the topmost Level now contains 3 Empty Blocks, decrease Building Stability by 50
Just the part that everyone seemed to be ok with. The alterations to Specialisations can come from another Proposal.
Reached quorum 6 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 10 Apr 2023 13:44:42 UTC
In “Safety Checks”, replace “As a Weekly Action” with:-
If they have not already done so while the Building Number was at its current value
For each Engineer who has performed more than one Inspection this dynasty, reduce their Safety Checks by the amount they gained from Inspections other than their first.
Suggesting one Inspection per player per Building, rather than once per arbitrary time period which will overlap unevenly with building progress. How long to delay Inspecting a Building seems more interesting in isolation.
I performed an inspection at 22:08 UTC and forgot to announce it.
Whoops!
Times out 5-1. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 10 Apr 2023 04:41:31 UTC
Replace the text “An Engineer with 6 or more Safety Checks may set their Safety Checks to 5 to set their Specialisation to any valid value.” with:
An Engineer may spend a “Years of Experience” in Safety Checks to set their Specialisation to any valid value, where “Years of Experience” is defined by 3 plus the building number.
With the ability to accumulate safety checks—especially when performing an inspection—being what it is, It seems a shame to have your checks set to a value. This discourages anyone from setting their specialisation and even more so as the game goes on.
Times out 5-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 10 Apr 2023 04:40:24 UTC
Replace the text “If the Build atomic action was completed” in the rule “Safety Checks” with the following:
If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection,
Certainly, by now, the Build atomic action was completed at some point by someone.
Withdrawn. Failed by Brendan.
Adminned at 09 Apr 2023 04:41:50 UTC
Repeal the rule “Integrity”.
In the rule “The Building”, after the bullet that begins with “Optionally, by spending 1 from any of their Materials”, add the following sub-bullet:
* * If they do so, and the Material has the Supportive Property, increase Building Stability by 25. Decrease Building Stability by 25 if the Material has the Heavy Property and the Block is not on the bottommost Level.
and after the bullet that begins with “Choose a non-Empty Block”, add the following bullets:
* If the Block that was swapped with an Empty Block contains a Material with the Heavy Property, decrease Building Stability by 25
* If the Level of the Block that was swapped with the topmost Level now contains 3 Empty Blocks, decrease Building Stability by 50
In the subrule “Building Contents” add this text:
A Block that “is, “has”, or “contains” a Material “X” is the same as describing the Block as an “X Block”, e.g. a “Wood Block” is the same as a “Block that is Wood” or “Block that contains Wood”.
In the rule “Specialisation” replace this text:
Carpenter: Change any Block in the Building to Wood
with this text:
Carpenter: Change any Block in the Building to Wood and update the Building Stability depending on the Block’s former Material, as described below:
* * Empty: increase Building Stability by 25
* * Had the Supportive Property: decrease Building Stability by 25
* * Had the Heavy Property: increase Building Stability by 25 unless the Block is on the bottommost Level
and replace this text:
Decorator: Change a non-Empty Block in the Building to the Material listed directly below it in the Building Contents table
with this text:
Decorator: Change a non-Empty Block in the Building to the Material listed directly below it in the Building Contents table and update the Building Stability depending on the Block’s new Material, as described below:
* * Has the Supportive Property: increase Building Stability by 25
* * Has the Heavy Property: decrease Building Stability by 25 unless the Block is on the bottommost Level
It’s not quite the same effect as Integrity, but it’s close enough without getting more complicated. It accomplishes the goals of making the choices of Block swapping and Material replacement more interesting.
If you think it’s still too complicated, just vote against it, no harm done.
Pokes idles out after seven days without a post or comment. Under the new idling rule this means they can’t be unidled during the next four days, and will time out at four days rather than seven for the current and subsequent dynasty.
Quorum drops to 6.
Passes 8-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 07 Apr 2023 14:30:42 UTC
In the rule “The Building”, replace this text:
Building Stability, which is an integer that defaults to 1,000
with this text:
Building Stability, which is an integer that defaults to 500
and replace this text:
Set Building Stability to (1,000+Building Number*100)
with this text:
Set Building Stability to its default value
If this text exists, remove it:
If the result is less than half of N, roll another DICEN and use the larger of the two dice rolls as the result, otherwise use the single roll as the result.
In the subrule “Building Contents”, if two columns exist with the heading “Properties” in the table, remove the rightmost of these columns from the table. If two rows exist that contain “Rebar” in the first column of the table, remove one instance of these rows from the table.
A simplier way to make a Build a more risky venture sooner. If you are alarmed at reducing the Stability default to 500, consider that there is Focus to offset the dice roll and the Decorator to replace Empty blocks with non-Empty ones. These become a lot more valuable when the Build is risky.
Consider as well the math. Without using any rules to patch up Empty blocks and without using Focus, a default of 1000 makes the first 8 Builds completely safe, even if you had a maximum Wobble on each one. A default of 500 reduces this to the first 5 Builds in the very worst case, but I think that’s good enough to move the game along.
Times out/passes 7-0. Enacted by Brendan.
Adminned at 07 Apr 2023 14:25:05 UTC
Replace “choose any W in the Building Contents” with “choose any Wood Block in the Building”.
Replace “the number of _ currently in the Building Contents” with “the number of Gaps in the Building”.
Replace “count the number of Blocks containing _ in the Building Contents” with “count the number of Gaps in the Building”.
To the end of the rule “The Building”, add a paragraph:-
A Gap is defined as an Empty Block which is not on the top Level of the Building.
Patching some leftover references to “Building Contents”, and creating a keyword to say that Empty Blocks on the very top Level are ignored for the purposes of checks.
Reached quorum 9 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 06 Apr 2023 14:22:23 UTC
Replace the first paragraph of the rule “The Building” with:-
The Building consists of an ordered collection of Levels arranged vertically, each of which contains a left-to-right ordered collection of exactly three Blocks (defaulting to three Empty Blocks).
The Building also has a Building Number, which defaults to 0, and a Building Stability, which is an integer that defaults to 1,000.
Replace the bullet point that begins “Choose a non-Empty Block” with:-
* If the topmost Level of the Building contains no Empty Blocks, add a new Level to the top of the Building.
* Choose a non-Empty Block that is not in one of the three topmost Levels of the Building, and swap that Block with an Empty Block on the topmost Level.
Replace “Building Contents to WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW” with:-
the Building to be six Levels, each of which contains three Wooden Blocks
Set the Building to have a number of default Levels equal to the number of items that were in the Building Contents immediately prior to this proposal’s enactment, divided by three (and rounded up). Then, for each Block in that Building (working from left-to-right within each Level, and from the bottom Level to the top), replace it with the corresponding item in that was in the Building Contents immediately prior to this proposal’s enactment (working from start to end).
Attempting the three-blocks-per-row Jenga idea, which I don’t think intrinsically breaks any other rules. (Integrity will just regard the Building as three separate towers, which will do for now.)
Timed out 4 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 06 Apr 2023 14:04:35 UTC
In the rule “The Building”, replace these bullets in the Build atomic action:
* Roll a DICEN, where N is the number of _ currently in the Building Contents, times 25.
* Decrease Building Stability by the Wobble. (The Wobble for this action is equal to the result of its die roll, minus any Focus spent during it, to a minimum of zero.)
with these bullets:
* Roll a DICEN, where N is the number of _ currently in the Building Contents, times 25. If the result is less than half of N, roll another DICEN and use the larger of the two dice rolls as the result, otherwise use the single roll as the result.
* Decrease Building Stability by the Wobble. (The Wobble for this action is equal to the result of the step above, minus any Focus spent during it, to a minimum of zero.)
In the subrule “Building Contents”, if two columns exist with the heading Properties in the table, remove the rightmost of these columns from the table. If two rows exist that contain “Rebar” in the first column of the table, remove one instance of these rows from the table.
Building is not going to be risky for a long time due to the decrease in Stability being a uniform distribution. Let’s weight it so that we’re more likely to get higher results and get to those exciting Jenga moments a bit sooner.
I also added some cleanup for the Building Contents where the Properties column was duplicated and the Rebar row was duplicated.
Timed out / quorumed 8 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 05 Apr 2023 16:10:38 UTC
Add a new rule named “Review Board” and give it the following text:
A Review Board is a type of Event. The Creation Conditions for a Review Board are that there must be no other Review Boards that are Open, and the body of the post must contain the name of exactly one non-idle Engineer whose Accident value is at least 1.
The Response Format for a Review Board is a comment containing a single voting icon of FOR or AGAINST as defined by the Voting Icons keywords.
The Ending Condition for a Review Board is that it has been at least 24 hours since the Review Board was created and there has been at least 1 valid Response.
The Ending Action for a Review Board is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Track two numbers named For and Against that each start with a value of 0
* For each Engineer posting a valid Response, add 1 to For if their most recent Response contained a FOR voting icon, or 1 to Against if their most recent Response contained an AGAINST voting icon
* Post the final values of For and Against as a comment in the Review Board post
* If For is greater than Against, decrease the Safety Checks of the Engineer named in the Review Board post by their Accidents
* Set the Accidents of the Engineer named in the Review Board post to 0
If “Building Goes Up” was enacted, add the following bullet as the last step of the Ending Action for a Review Board:
* If For is greater than Against, remove the Specialisation of the Engineer named in the Review Board post
Just trying to shake things up here, pun intended. This is one way to have consequences for accumulating Accidents. It’s true that it doesn’t have to be this complicated, as we could just have a rule that automatically subtracts Accidents from Safety Checks upon some trigger mechanism, but I thought maybe an Event might be more interesting. I could be wrong.
Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 1 vote to 6 by Kevan.
Adminned at 04 Apr 2023 12:41:51 UTC
Enact “Stacks on Stacks” if it isn’t enacted already. Remove all text after the second blockquote in the proposal “Block Chains” if it hasn’t passed, or remove the second instance of the material “Rebar” in the table of building materials if it has passed. Change all instances of “WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW” to “18 blocks of Wood”. Uphold all Build actions taken before this CfJ was posted.
This seems like too important of a fix(es) to keep in the proposal line. Personally I think that Josh is wrong in his interpretation, but we may as well clear any ambiguity now.
Timed out 6 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 05 Apr 2023 09:13:53 UTC
To the Build action, after the “Choose a Block” bullet, add another:-
* Perform their Specialisation’s Bonus (if they have a Specialisation)
Enact a new rule, “Specialisation”:-
Each Engineer may have a single Specialisation from the following list, being publicly tracked by having the first letter of that Specialisation prepended to their Safety Checks (and no letter prepended if they have no Specialisation). Each Specialisation has the Bonus effect listed for it.
- Architect: Swap any two non-Empty Blocks in the Building
- Carpenter: Change any Block in the Building to Wood
- Decorator: Change a non-Empty Block in the Building to the Material listed directly below it in the Building Contents table
- Electrician: Gain 20 Focus
- Logistician: Increase three Engineers’ Stone values by 1
- Stonemason: Gain 1 Stone
An Engineer with 6 or more Safety Checks may set their Safety Checks to 5 to set their Specialisation to any valid value.
If “Underlay, Underlay, A Rebar, A Rebar” enacted, move the Rebar Material to be above Stone, in the Building Contents table.
Bringing back the Guilds idea as a reward for successfully building.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 05 Apr 2023 07:57:49 UTC
In the rule The Building, change
Add a copy of it in the topmost place of the Building Contents
to
Add a new empty Block to the top of the Building and then fill it with the contents of the chosen Block.
For any Block that contains more than one Material, create sufficient new Blocks immediately above them, and then move the excess Materials in the original Block into the newly created Blocks such that each Block contains one Material, moving excess Materials out from right to left.
Reached quorum 10 votes to 0. Enacted with no effect by Kevan, as Stonecrusher 5000 was enacted.
Adminned at 04 Apr 2023 12:41:09 UTC
If “The Stonecrusher 5000” is enacted, this Proposal has no effect.
In the rule “The Quarry” replace this text:
they must first perform the Erosion atomic action if it has been more than 24 hours since the last Erosion.
with this text
they must first perform the Erosion atomic action if it has been more than 24 hours since the last Erosion, or if Erosion has not been performed since the beginning of this dynasty.
When I had made this suggestion in Misty’s proposal, I forgot to account for the first time that Erosion is performed. Technically, the rule currently has no meaning because it’s not possible to determine “it’s been more than 24 hours since the last Erosion” since Erosion has never been performed yet.
Reached quorum 9 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 04 Apr 2023 12:40:06 UTC
In “The Building”, change
Choose a Block that is not one of the five topmost Blocks in the Building Contents.
to
Choose a non-Empty Block that is not one of the five topmost Blocks in the Building Contents.
Seems a bit odd that you can build with ‘nothing’.
Timed out 4 votes to 3. Enacted by Kevan, taking the “In the same rule” clause literally as not depending on Underlay’s non-enactment.
Adminned at 04 Apr 2023 12:39:04 UTC
Reword the subrule “Integrity” (or create it as a subrule of The Building if it doesn’t exist) to the following:
Each Block of the Building has an Integrity score, which is an integer that is not publicly tracked but which is an emergent property of its relative position and composition in the Building, and which must be specifically recalculated whenever it is called upon in the completion of an action.
A Block’s Integrity is -1 if it is Empty. Otherwise, it is the number of consecutive blocks directly above itself that are not _, plus the number of Supportive blocks below it. Then, if the block is Heavy, the Integrity score is doubled.
If “That Guy Who Topples Your Tower For No Reason” passed, add the following to “Integrity”:
If the block is Weakened, the Integrity score is halved, rounding down.
If “Underlay, Underlay, A Rebar, A Rebar” did not pass, add the following to the rule Building Contents, before the table:
Each Material may have Properties, as determined by the table below.
In the same rule, add a new column to the table for Properties, and give Stone the value “Heavy, Supportive” in that column. Add the following new Material to the table:
| Rebar || R || Modern girders to support vertical construction. || Supportive
A hopefully more intuitive take on Integrity scores. I’m not sure I correctly worded all of this, but the intent was for something like the bottom block in WWW_WWW to have an Integrity Score of 2.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Skipping “Repeat this until the Threat has three items.” as impossible under “If the Admin enacting a Votable Matter reaches a step which cannot be applied immediately”, as repeatedly adding items until a list of four items has three items would take an infinite amount of time.
Adminned at 04 Apr 2023 11:16:00 UTC
If Proposal: That Guy Who Topples Your Tower For No Reason was not enacted, skip the rest of this proposal.
In the rule “Threat”, change the following:
* Starting from the leftmost item, carry out the effect of the Disaster corresponding to the item in the list once for every item.
* Blank the Threat
to:
* Carry out the Effect of the Disaster corresponding to the first item in the Threat and remove the first item in the Threat. Repeat this step until the Threat is blank.
Randomly select a Disaster and add its name to the Threat. Repeat this until the Threat has three items.
first step of the trigger action doesn’t actually reference the threat, which means it ends up doing nothing
here’s an attempt to fix that
also making it so the threat isn’t completely blank until a trigger happens
Timed out 4 votes to 3. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 04 Apr 2023 11:09:55 UTC
In the rule “The Quarry”, remove everything after the first sentence.
To the end of the “Move On” atomic action, add a step:-
* If the Quarry has at least as much Stone as five times the number of Engineers: give each Engineer 5 Stone and reduce the amount of Stone in the Quarry by five times the number of Engineers.
We’ve changed the compulsory hourly count to a compulsory daily check, but I suspect that people will still sometimes forget to do this, invalidating their actions. And the daily action DICE2 grind has already been flagged as “mostly pointless”.
So this keeps the finite Quarry, but simplifies its output to a single delivery for each new Building.
Unpopular 1-7. - Misty
Adminned at 03 Apr 2023 13:40:34 UTC
Add a new rule called “Verbal Warning” with the text:
The Verbal Warning list is a list of Engineers that starts out empty and is publicly tracked. If at the end of any 72 hour period an engineer has not performed a build action then the city architect will add them to the verbal warning list.
Just a lil warning for now, could turn into something more.
Passes 8-0. - Misty
Adminned at 03 Apr 2023 13:37:22 UTC
If the Proposal “This Way Up” was not enacted then this proposal has no effect.
Add a new rule named “Safety Checks” and give it the following text:
Each Engineer has a number of Safety Checks which is publicly tracked and which defaults to 0.
As a Weekly Action, an Engineer may perform an Inspection, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Make a blog post or comment stating that they are performing an Inspection
* Perform the Build atomic action if possible
* If the Build atomic action was completed, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, count the number of Blocks containing _ in the Building Contents at that time and add this number to the their Safety Checks
In the rule “The Building”, add the following bullet as the last step of the atomic action Build:
* If Building Stability is greater than 0, add 1 to their Safety Checks.
Here’s the incentive to Build, assuming that Safety Checks will become important at some point. You’ll always get at least 1 Safety Check as a “reward” for a Build that doesn’t result in a Collapse. Once per week, if you time your Inspection right, the payoff could be even better.
Passes 9-1-0. - Misty
Adminned at 03 Apr 2023 13:35:28 UTC
Set the Stone of every Engineer who has any Stone to 10.
The mine-grind seems mostly pointless so far. So why not make it completely pointless?
Passes 8-0. - Misty
Adminned at 03 Apr 2023 13:31:48 UTC
If Proposal: Underlay, Underlay, A Rebar, A Rebar was not enacted, skip the rest of this proposal.
Create a new dynastic rule named “Threat” with the following body:
The Threat is a publicly tracked list of values in the format “X, Y, Z” that may contain up to three items.
As a Weekly Communal Action, an Engineer or the City Architect may Trigger, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Starting from the leftmost item, carry out the effect of the Disaster corresponding to the item in the list once for every item.
* Blank the Threat
* Randomly select a Disaster and add its name to the Threat. Repeat this step until the list has three items.A Disaster consists of a Name, an Effect and a Description (which is flavor text). The Disasters are listed in the table below:
{| class=“wikitable sortable”
|-
! Name || Effect || Description
|-
| Saboteur | Randomly select a Block that isn’t _ and set it to _ | Hey, who took this block out?
|-
| Earthquake | Randomly select 3 Blocks and Weaken them | At least it didn’t collapse immediately…
|}
In the rule “The Building”, subrule Integrity, change “A Block’s Integrity is calculated as follows: (Support) - (Height), plus or minus (Pressure)” to:
A Block’s Integrity is calculated as follows: (Support) - (Height) - (10 if it is Weakened), plus or minus (Pressure)
In the rule “The Building”, append the following paragraph to the end of the subrule Integrity:
A Block may be Weakened by another action if it does not contain a _. When this happens, change the letter representing the Block item from upper case to lower case. If it is already Weakened as displayed by a lower case letter, change it to _.
I’m aware there’s currently no incentive to actually Trigger, but I can’t think of anything right now so this is what we get
values could probably use a little tweaking but we’ll see
Passes 7-2. - Misty
Adminned at 03 Apr 2023 13:27:57 UTC
If Proposal: This Way Up was not enatced then this proposal has no effect.
Add a new subrule to the rule The Building, called Integrity, with the following text:
Each Block of the Building has an Integrity score, which is not publicly tracked but which is an emergent property of its relative position and composition in the Building, and which must be specifically recalculated whenever it is called upon in the completion of an action.
A Block’s Integrity is calculated as follows: (Support) - (Height), plus or minus (Pressure) - determined at random at the moment of recalculation.
A Block’s Height is equal to the number of Blocks that are between it and the base, inclusive of both itself and the base, divided by 10 and rounded down.
A Block’s Support is equal to the number of Blocks between it and the base, inclusive of the base but not itself, that have the Supportive property, minus two times the number of blocks between itself and the base (inclusive of both) that are Empty.
A Block’s Pressure is one-fifth, rounded down, of the number of non-empty Blocks between it and top, inclusive of the top but not itself, plus one for each of those Blocks that are Heavy.
Add the following to the rule Building Contents, befor the table:
Each Material may have Properties, as determined by the table below.
In the same rule, add a new column to the table for Properties, and give Stone the value “Heavy, Supportive” in that column. Add the following new Material to the table:
| Rebar || R || Modern girders to support vertical construction. || Supportive