As Verba’s mentor, I’ve attempted to reach out privately to establish communications, but I’m encountering a really weird error message that says their inbox is full. I’ve never encountered this before.

Verba, if you’re still around, could you please check your settings and inbox? If this is a system error it should be resolved as quickly as possible.

If a single Plan is allocated 1 on half or more of the Ballots of non-Selfish non-Excluded Drafters, and its author is not Selfish, that Plan’s author achieves victory. Otherwise, do nothing.

Remove the “Event Types” Building Block from the Building Blocks wiki page.

For all edits to the gamestate tracking page for all Drafter’s Ballots from the beginning of this dynasty to this enactment, treat each allocation of a whole number to a named Drafter as an allocation of that same whole number to that Drafter’s Plan.

In the rule “Ranked Choice”, insert the following as the second paragraph:

For each Drafter’s Ballot, the allocation of a whole number to a Plan may be represented in gamestate tracking as an allocation of that same whole number to the name of the Drafter who authored that Plan.

In “Ranked Choice”, move the step

For each Runoff Ballot, re-allocate the whole numbers in that Runoff Ballot such that the order of the Plans in that Runoff Ballot does not change, but the whole numbers allocated to each Plan in that Runoff Ballot are contiguous starting at 1.

to come immediately before the step

For each Drafter’s Plan, calculate that Plan’s Top Pick as the number of Runoff Ballots in which that Plan is allocated a 1.

and renumber the steps to reflect their new order.

Enact a new rule, “In Seclusion”:-

A Drafter is Excluded if they were not a Drafter on the 27 May 2025. Excluded Drafters cannot take dynastic actions or declare victory.

If Darknight has created no Reviews and their Ballot has no value set for it, add after “2025” in that rule:-

, or if they are named Darknight

If the proposal “Conclave” has enacted and Darknight has created no Reviews and their Ballot has no value set for it, reword “In Seclusion” to:-

A Drafter is Excluded if they were not a Drafter on the 27 May 2025, or if they are named Darknight. Excluded Drafters cannot take dynastic actions or declare victory.

Trapdoorspyder will mentor Verba until 25 June 2025 (or the end of this dynasty, if it comes later).

If Proposal: Two Term Limit was not enacted then this proposal has no effect.

Add the following as a new dynastic rule, called In Seclusion:

No Drafter may be made unidle, unless a Declaration of Victory has been enacted since 27 May 2025, or unless the date is on or after 4 June 2025.

In the list of atomic action steps in “Ranked Choice”, move step 8 to immediately after step 2 (adjusting the numbering of the steps to reflect their new order).

In the rule Ranked Choice, change the text:

If the Winning Plan is empty, and a quorum of Drafters have a Ballot that has a value, and no Drafter has changed their Ballot in the past 48 hours, and the Supervisor has not performed an Instant Runoff within the past 48 hours, the Supervisor should perform an Instant Runoff, which is an atomic action with the following numbered steps:

To read:

If the Winning Plan is empty, the Supervisor has not performed an Instant Runoff within the past 48 hours, and either of the following are true, the Supervisor should perform an Instant Runoff:
* It is on or after 30 May 2025
* A quorum of Drafters have a Ballot that has a value, and no Drafter has changed their Ballot in the past 48 hours,

An Instant Runoff is an atomic action with the following numbered steps:

In the rule Ranked Choice, change the text “If the Winning Plan is empty, and a quorum of Drafters have a Ballot that has a value” to read:

If the Winning Plan is empty, and either is is on or after Friday 30th May 2025, or a quorum of Drafters have a Ballot that has a value

Add a new rule named, “Editor’s Desk,” with the following text:

Any “Drafter” may propose to send any other “Drafter’s Plan” to the “Editor’s Desk” by naming the “Drafter,” the “Drafter’s Plan,” and the reason for sending it to the “Editor’s Desk” in the proposal. If the proposal passes, the named “Drafter’s Plan” is now considered “on the Editor’s Desk,” and is not considered gamestate while on the “Editor’s Desk.” The “Drafter” whose plan was sent to the “Editor’s Desk,” in order to reinstate their plan as gamestate, must prove they have met the required correction(s) by editing their entry, after which they must submit a Story Post - Votable Matter entitled, “Letter to the Editor [Name of Drafter’s Plan],” stating the requested corrections have been implemented. Other “Drafters” must vote FOR or AGAINST based on the accuracy of the revisions.

Reasons for proposing to send a “Drafter’s Plan” to the “Editor’s Desk” must be at least one of the following:

X Does not meet all required Mandates as designated under the Claims on the Draft Board
X Does not include at least one hyperlink to another relevant page on Blognomic
X Does not include the terms, “summary” or “gameplay” or a combination of the two within a heading
X Includes a rule regarding the creation of a gamestate involving a form of random resolution
X Does not include an alternate name for the Emperor/Supervisor as an inherent description of the starting gamestate

In the same rule, include the following subrule named, “Sabotage:”

Other “Drafters” may not edit any “Drafter’s Plan” other than their own. If a provable instance of a “Drafter” editing any “Drafter’s Plan” other than their own can be presented publicly and factually, with evidence, the Supervisor shall immediately delete the offending editor’s “Drafter’s Plan.” The offending “Drafter,” if they wish to reenter a “Plan” as gamestate, they must create an entirely new “Drafter’s Plan,” with a uniquely distinct theme and different ruleset than that which was deleted.

The essay “On the role of Argumentation in Nomic” includes the following argument:

It is sometimes said that the fundamental move of a Nomic is to propose, or vote. On the basis of the above, I would assert that the fundamental move of a Nomic is an argument, put forward respectfully but passionately, and then robustly defended. It is through that non-codified but nevertheless essential game action that coalitions can be built, plans can be broken or made, and the principle of the Golden Rule is made real in the game.

Add the following as a Mandate with an ID of 01:

A plan should include an argument (an inherent value of direct competition by which resolution must be decided non-randomly) on which at least two players begin opposed by instituting said argument as part of the initial hypothetical gamestate.

As per the sub-rule “Request” under the rule, “Reviews,” I hereby humbly request the most vicious, cruel, downright malicious and even accusatory examinations of my entirely hypothetical dynasty.

You may find it here.

“Lo, on that day, Verba did find himself standing upon the rim of the seventh circle of Blognomic, gazing ever into the abyss; an amorphous spiral of slowly codifying chaos shaped by multiple, master rulemancers. With trembling lip and hesitant step, he laid forth foot on the swampy morass, steadied himself, and leapt headlong into the fray.”

Now, with that said, greetings everyone. The name this ever-changing landscape hath betrothed me is Verba, and after viewing Nomic, and, by extension, Blognomic, from a distance for quite some time, I’m glad to leap into the action.

I’m entirely new to the game, and am pleased to learn by the difficult path: being corrected by votes, repeals, corrective edits and suggestions, and all-around intense debate and discussion.

In the rule “Ranked Choice”, after the step that starts with the text “If there are no Plans with a Top Pick of at least 1”, insert the following step:

# If all of the remaining Plans in the Runoff Ballots have the same amount of Top Picks, skip to the last step in this atomic action.

In the same rule, at the end of the text “the Drafter who authored that Plan.” add the following text:

If the Winning Plan is empty, summarize the reason why it is empty in this post.

We have a quorum of Ballots filled out at this point. While people are still making some changes and the 48-hour timer gets reset every time that happens, I expect it will settle down soon. What this means for the named players in the title of this post is that you should get your Reviews and Ballots together if you want to help pick the winner and perhaps improve your own chances.

It’s certainly not obligatory, but it’s worth noting the opportunity.

I have added imperial style! In addition, the theme has been tightened up slightly since my last requenst.

In the rule “Rating”, replace “Each Drafter has a number named Rating” with “Each Drafter has a publicly tracked number named Rating”.

If a quorum of EVC’s on this Proposal contain the word “repeal”, then repeal the rule “Rating”.

If the proposals “Instant Runoff - Just Add Water” and “Wall of Shame” both enacted, add after the first step in “Ranked Choice”:-

# For each Drafter who is listed among the Selfish, remove their Runoff Ballot (if they have one) from the pool of Runoff Ballots, and remove their Plan (if they have one) from all Runoff Ballots

I’ve updated my draft to add Imperial Styles, Design Space, and address the concerns around a lucky player getting a guess too quickly.

I’ve added some notes on Imperial Styles to my Draft. I’d particularly appreciate DoomedIdeas’ attention as I think it may offer some comfort on the timing issues raised in his Review.

I have created a new Draft. Reviews and feedback are welcome.

In the rule “Reviews”, add the following text as a new paragraph:

There is a publicly tracked Selfish, which is always the list of Drafters who have no publicly tracked Reviews that they authored.

If there is a rule named “Ranked Choice”, add the following text to it:

There is a publicly-tracked Winning Plan, which is either empty or the name of a Drafter’s Plan, defaulting to empty.

If the Winning Plan is empty, and a quorum of Drafters have a Ballot that has a value, and no Drafter has changed their Ballot in the past 48 hours, and the Supervisor has not performed an Instant Runoff within the past 48 hours, the Supervisor should perform an Instant Runoff, which is an atomic action with the following numbered steps:

# Privately track a copy of each Drafter’s Ballot. These privately-tracked copies are considered the Runoff Ballots for this instance of Instant Runoff.
# For each Drafter’s Plan, calculate that Plan’s Top Pick as the number of Runoff Ballots in which that Plan is allocated a 1.
# If there is a single Plan with a Top Pick at least equal to a quorum of Drafters, set the Winning Plan to that Plan and skip to the last step in this atomic action.
# If there are no Plans with a Top Pick of at least 1, skip to the last step in this atomic action.
# Select the Plans with the lowest Top Picks among all Plans as the Losers.
# For each Loser, remove it from each Runoff Ballot.
# For each Runoff Ballot, re-allocate the whole numbers in that Runoff Ballot such that the order of the Plans in that Runoff Ballot does not change, but the whole numbers allocated to each Plan in that Runoff Ballot are contiguous starting at 1.
# Go to step 2.
# Make a Story Post stating the contents of the Winning Plan, and if the Winning Plan is not empty, the Drafter who authored that Plan.

If the Winning Plan is not empty, the Drafter who is the author of the Plan named in the Winning Plan has achieved victory.

I was inspired by Trapdoorspyder mentioning a re-ordering of the Reviews in order by the Drafter each Review was meant for, so I’ve done that to the gamestate page. It makes it a lot easier to find Reviews for that Drafter and see at a glance who still needs Reviews.

If anyone disagrees with the formatting, feel free to undo. Also feel free to check that I copy-pasted the reviews correctly.

In “Drafts and Plans”, replace “that contains a summary of the gameplay for a hypothetical future dynasty, together with at least two hypothetical dynastic rules that might exist in the early stages of that dynasty.” with:-

that either:
* if written before the 25th of May 2025, contains a summary of the gameplay for a hypothetical future dynasty, together with at least two hypothetical dynastic rules that might exist in the early stages of that dynasty
* contains an Ascension Address for a hypothetical future dynasty, and the first two proposals that its Emperor might make.

And add a paragraph break after “might make.”

If Proposal: Grin and Merit was enacted then this proposal has no further effect.

Add the following as a sub-rule to the rule Reviews, called Ranked Choice:

Each Drafter has a Ballot, which is publicly tracked and defaults to no value. At any time, a Drafter may Amend their Ballot, by which they allocate each whole number between one and n (where n is the number of Plans, minus one if they themselves have a Plan) to a single Plan other than their own, such that an ordered hierarchy of Plans is created with their favourite Plan having a score of 1 and their least favourite plan having a score of n. When amending their Ballot, a Drafter must consider their existing Reviews and should strive to be consistent to their expressed preferences and wishes.

Add a subrule to “Rating” called “Merit”

Each Drafter also has derived integer number named Merit, which is equal to their Rating minus the median Rating of all Drafters or zero, whichever is larger

If a Merit Check is required to be performed, it is done by performing the following atomic action

* Sort all Drafters with positive Merit in alphabetical order
* Assign each Drafter in this list a Merit Threshold which is equal to their Merit plus the Merit of all Drafters alphabetically before them in the list
* Roll a DICEN where N is the total Merit of all Drafters
* Determine the Drafter with the highest Merit Threshold in the list whose Merit Threshold is greater than or equal to the result of the dice roll. That Drafter is Meritorious
* Make a Story Post to the blog declaring the Meritorious Drafter
* Upon doing so, the Meritorious Drafter has achieved victory

The essay Advice for Emperors includes the following advice:

If you spot a loophole in a player’s proposal, will you point it out? If a proposal takes your initial theme in a direction other than that which you expected, how will you react? Is it up to the players to check over each others’ actions, or are you responsible for maintaining the integrity of the gamestate? Under what circumstances would you use the veto?

Once you have answered the question for yourself of what your approach will be, communicate it. Players respond poorly to an ambiguous relationship with the Emperor. Don’t be afraid to change your approach but if you do then communicate that too. Be overt, direct and transparent.

Add the following as a Mandate with an ID of 42:

A Plan should contain a description of how an Emperor leading the proposed Dynasty is suggested to act.

I have updated my Draft, changing the files to partial examples of lists and completely redoing the theme. I have also added an example image. If these changes alter your feedback on my Draft at all, please update your Review!

I’ve updated my draft based on feedback, with the following primary changes:
* Removed the 2-cycle gameplay loop in favor of a simpler routine with more public play.
* Added another item to increase the demonstration of what mechanics could exist in the dynasty
* Increased the detail in the example rules to provide a better overview of what the starting state of the dynasty could look like.

Add a new dynastic rule “Desires”, placing it after “Essays and Citations”, with the following text (where * represents the start of a list item):

There is a publicly tracked list of Desires, each of which is a sentence. Desires are flavour text. Each Drafter can, once in this dynasty, choose a sentence that recommends that Plans should have some specific (but potentially subjective) property and that starts with “A Plan should” or “A plan should not”, and add that sentence to the list of Desires.

Each Desire on the list of Desires has a publicly tracked number of Strikes, defaulting to 0. Each Drafter can, once in this dynasty, increase the number of Strikes on a Desire by 1. If a Desire on the list of Desires has 2 or more Strikes, any Drafter may remove it from the list of Desires.

If there is at least one Desire, and no Desires have been added to the list of Desires in the previous 72 hours, and no Desire has had its number of Strikes changed within the previous 48 hours, any Drafter may perform the following Atomic Action:
* Remove all Desires with 2 or more Strikes from the list of Desires (this step can be skipped if no such Desires exist);
* Add each Desire to the list of Mandates in the rule Mandates, preceded by an ID number that is not being used by any existing Mandate or any Mandate in the proposal queue;
* Repeal this rule (“Desires”).

In the Appendix, in rule “Random Generators”, change:

The Dice Roller at https://blognomic.com/dice/roll.php can be used to generate random results.

to

The Dice Roller at https://blognomic.com/dice/roll.php can be used to generate random results. For the purpose of determining the probability distribution of a random selection, each Dice Roller command is assumed to generate each of its possible results with equal probability (except in the case where duplicate values are placed inside a curly-bracketed list).

I made several major changes to my Investigations Draft:

• I added a 4th Clue Type
• I changed Guesses to be Virtual Actions to remove timing advantages
• I made a new interactive Investigation post type which allows for multiplayer action, to address the concerns brought up by Kevan and Josh. The Investigators have to work together to come to a consensus in assigning a Lead to each Investigator from a pool of randomly-selected Leads, some of which are true Leads and some of which are false Leads. The contents of each Lead are revealed privately to that Lead’s assigned Investigator

In the rule “Drafts and Plans” add a subrule named “Final Drafts” with the following text:

A Draft is Final when the Plan Link that names it is formatted in bold text.

If a Drafter has a non-blank Plan Link, and that Drafter has not changed their Plan Link in the past 48 hours and has not edited the Draft named in that Plan Link in the past 48 hours, that Drafter may format their Plan Link with bold text to indicate that it names a Final Draft.

When a Draft is Final, that Draft may no longer be edited, and Reviews meant for that Drafter may not be created, removed, or replaced.

If at least a quorum of Drafters have a Final Draft, and a single Drafter has the highest Rating, that Drafter has achieved victory.

In the rule “Mandates” add a subrule named “Challenges” with the following text:

A Claim Challenge is a Story Post - Votable Matter with a title that starts with the text “Claim Challenge: ” followed by the name of a Drafter and the ID number of a Mandate in that Drafter’s Claims. Any Drafter may post a Claim Challenge if the combination of Drafter and Mandate ID number in that Claim Challenge is not currently Pending in any other Claim Challenge. In the body of a Claim Challenge, the author of that post should describe why they think the Drafter named in that Claim Challege title should not be able to claim the Mandate with the ID number contained in that Claim Challenge title.

Drafters are strongly encouraged to vote on the merits of a Claim Challenge, describing why they are choosing that particular vote, and not make their vote based on strategic or selfish reasons.

If a Claim Challenge is Popular and was posted more than 24 hours ago, its author or any admin can mark it as Enacted and remove the Mandate ID number conatined in that Claim Challenge’s title from the Claims of the Drafter named in that Claim Challenge’s title. If a Claim Challenge is Unpopular, its author or any admin can mark it as Failed.

A Drafter who has had a Mandate ID number removed from their Claims by a Claim Challenge may not add that Mandate ID number to their Claims until they make an edit to the Draft named in their Plan Link after that Claim Challenge was Enacted.

In the rule “Drafts and Plans” add a subrule named “Final Drafts” with the following text:

Each Drafter other than the Supervisor has a Status, which is either blank or Final.

If a Drafter has a non-blank Plan Link, and that Drafter has not edited the Draft named in that Plan Link for the past 48 hours, that Drafter may set their Status to Final.

When a Drafter’s Status is Final, the Draft named in their Plan Link may no longer be edited, and Reviews meant for that Drafter may not be created, removed, or replaced.

Add a new rule named “Draft Pick” with the following text:

If a quorum of Drafters have a Status of Final, and a single Drafter has the highest Rating, that Drafter has achieved victory.

A Draft Pick is a Story Post with a title that starts with the text “Draft Pick:” followed by the names of two or more Drafters. A Draft Pick is either Open or Closed, defaulting to Open. If a quorum of Drafters have a Status of Final, and more than one Drafter has the highest Rating, and there is no Open Draft Pick, any Drafter may post a Draft Pick where the title contains all the names of the Drafters with the highest Rating.

A Draft Vote is a comment by a Drafter on a Draft Pick that contains a single instance of the text “Vote for “, followed immediately by the name of one of the Drafters named in the title of that Draft Pick. Any Drafter may make one or more Draft Votes on an Open Draft Pick, but only their most recent Draft Vote on that Draft Pick is considered their current Draft Vote.

If a Draft Pick has been Open for at least 48 hours, the Supervisor may perform Close Draft Pick, which is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Post a comment to that Draft Pick with the text “This Draft Pick is Closed”
* Count the number of times each Drafter has been named among the current Draft Votes
* If a single Drafter has the highest count of being named among the current Draft Votes, select that Drafter as the Picked Drafter
* If more than one Drafter has the highest count of being named among the current Draft Votes, select one Drafter of the Supervisor’s choice among those Drafters as the Picked Drafter
* Post a comment to that Draft Pick indicating the Drafter who is the Picked Drafter. That Drafter has achieved Victory.

When Close Draft Pick has been performed on a Draft Pick, that Draft Pick is Closed.

Please unidle me.

Amend “Recusants” in “Drafters” in the Core Rules by replacing this text:

An Idle Drafter may post or vote on a Votable Matter provided that its effect is entirely limited to amending the non-dynastic ruleset.

with this text:

An Idle Drafter may post or vote on a Votable Matter provided that its effect does not include, even conditionally, the creation, deletion or amendment of dynastic rules or gamestate defined by dynastic rules.

Add the following to the end of the rule Rating:

No Drafter may change a Draft or add a new Plan after noon UTC on Friday 30 May. No Drafter may change or add a Review, or make a new Citation, after noon UTC on Saturday 31 May. If a single Drafter has the highest Rating at noon UTC on Monday 2 June then they have achieved victory; if no single Drafter can achieve Victory at that time then no Drafter has achieved Victory.

In the rule “Reviews”, add a subrule named “Requests” with the following text:

A Request is a blog post in the Story Post category in which the author summarizes any changes they made to their current Draft and requests new Reviews. If a Drafter hasn’t done so within the past 24 hours, they may post a Request.

In the rule “Rating”, add the following text:

If a Drafter has no Reviews meant for them, their Rating is 0.

Add the following to the end of the Community Guidelines as a new section, called Guidelines for Content:

It is generally preferred, except where explicitly permitted by the dynastic ruleset, that players avoid the use of generative AI or LLMs when producing content for the game. This includes non-gamestate content such as dynastic banners or dynastic history text.

In “Essays and Citations”, replace “If a Citation is Popular” with:-

If a Citation is Popular and was posted more than 24 hours ago

Create a subrule of Reviews, called “Feedback”, with the following text:

There is a publicly tracked list of Feedback, defaulting to empty. Feedback is a flavor text string of at most 500 characters, along with the name of the idle Drafter who created it and the name of a Drafter that it is meant for. Feedback may only be created by Idle Drafters, and may only be meant for non-Idle Drafters. Idle Drafters are not allowed to create multiple pieces of Feedback all meant for the same Drafter, though they are allowed to replace any of their previous Feedback with different Feedback, so long as it is still meant for the same Drafter. Feedback should include genuine feedback on the Plan of the Drafter it is meant for, as well as information as to whether or not the Idle Drafter who created the Feedback would be willing to unidle in order to join the Dynasty represented by the Plan. Feedback is not included in any calculations of Score.

In the rule “Reviews”, replace the following text:

There is a publicly tracked list of Reviews, defaulting to empty. A Review is a flavor text string of at most 500 characters, and Scores for Theme, Mechanics and Style (where each Score is a number ranging from 1 to 5), along with the name of the Drafter who created it and the name of a Drafter that it is meant for. As an Action, any Drafter may add a Review. Drafters are not allowed to create a second Review meant for a particular Drafter if they already have an existing Review meant for said Drafter, though they are allowed to replace any of their previous Reviews with another Review, so long as it is meant for the same Drafter. A Drafter may not create a Review meant for themself. A Review should include genuine feedback on the Plan of the Drafter it is meant for.

with this text:

There is a publicly tracked list of Reviews, defaulting to empty. A Review is a flavor text string of at most 500 characters, and Scores for Theme, Mechanics and Style (where each Score is a number ranging from 1 to 5), along with the name of the Drafter or Idle Drafter who created it and the name of a Drafter that it is meant for. As an Action, any Drafter or Idle Drafter may add a Review. Drafters and Idle Drafters are not allowed to create a second Review meant for a particular Drafter if they already have an existing Review meant for said Drafter, though they are allowed to replace any of their previous Reviews with another Review, so long as it is meant for the same Drafter. A Drafter may not create a Review meant for themself. A Review should include genuine feedback on the Plan of the Drafter it is meant for.

Change the gamestate (including the history of performed dynastic actions) to what it currently would be if the second list item in “Essays and Citations” had never been part of the ruleset.

Change the text of “Essays and Citations” to read:

As a weekly action, a Drafter may make a Citation, a blog post in the Story Post: Votable Matters category that highlights a passage from an essay held in the Essays category on the Blognomic wiki that was authored by a Drafter or idle Drafter other than themselves. In the same post, they should distil the passage thus highlighted into a sentence that begins “A Plan should” or “A plan should not”; said sentence should represent a sincere attempt to convey the render the sense of the highlighted passage into a precept that can be legally followed by a Drafter when composing a Plan, and is known as that Citation’s Suggestion.

If a Citation is Popular, its author or any admin can mark it as Enacted and add that Citation’s Suggestion to the list of Mandates in the rule Mandates, preceded by an ID number that is not being used by any existing Mandate or any Mandate in the proposal queue.
If a Citation is Unpopular, its author or any admin can mark it as Failed.

The essay Advice for Emperors describes how to build mechanics that support both casual and competitive players:

Different players approach BlogNomic in different ways, and while an Emperor doesn’t have to ensure that all of their concerns are equally met, it is helpful to carry certain archetypes in mind when considering the mechanical flow of the ruleset.

At a default level, you should aim to ensure that there is a simple starter mechanic that any player can perform without having to understand the whole ruleset. Holding a ruleset in your head and modelling how it works is a skill, and a rare one; most players want to dip a toe in and see where it leads. Having a single, simple action that new players can perform that doesn’t require them to understand second-and third-order knock-on effects will act as an on-ramp that will allow casual and new players to engage with the game. Those players won’t always actually be competitive, but that isn’t the point. The point is for them to be involved, and to give those players who do want to play to win a complex ecosystem in which to operate.

Add the following as a new Mandate:

A Plan should contain at least one simple dynastic action with straight-forward effects on the gamestate as well as the mechanics to include more complex dynastic actions and effects.

Add a new rule named “Rating” with the following text:

Each Drafter has a number named Rating which is a derived value using the following formula, where any scores referred to in the formula are among all Reviews meant for that Drafter:

Rating = (Median value of all Mechanics scores + Median value of all Theme scores + Median value of all Style scores) x Number of Mandates in that Drafter’s Claims

A couple of comments I have about the current styling of the blog:

• The blog sidebar has been very narrow for a few dynasties now; it got made narrower at some point and hasn’t been widened again. (I’m not sure whether space was taken from it to widen the margins, or whether it lost width for some other reason.) IIRC, the “Pending Calls for Judgement” used to fit on one line, but currently wraps onto two. At least on my browser, the table doesn’t quite fit into the sidebar at the moment (“Trapdoorspyder” + “Claims” + “Investigations” take up all the available horizontal space on their own), and the narrow width also makes the reviews harder to read – so this might be a good time to widen it again, if we can find horizontal space for it.
• We’ve had REVISE votes for a few dynasties now, and it’s probable that they’ll become something of a permanent fixture now that the edit window has been removed. At the moment, we’re using the ARROW icon for them because it was the only available voting symbol that didn’t already have a use. I’m wondering whether it might make sense to come up with a new icon specialised for the purpose (although if we changed the image to something other than arrow.gif, we’d probably need to change the ruleset because it currently defines REVISE votes in terms of the image filename). It would seem fitting to finally have a complete proposal-revising system in a dynasty that’s all about drafting things, and while it’s using the generic icon, it still feels a bit incomplete.

In the rule “Reviews”, add the following text:

When a Drafter edits their Plan or changes their Plan Link, they may choose to remove all Reviews that were meant for them within 30 minutes of making that edit or that Plan Link change. If that Drafter chooses to remove Reviews that were meant for them, they must remove all such Reviews.

The essay Avoiding Dead Ends calls out the following risk:

Silent Gameplay
Situation
One or more core mechanics of a dynasty require few or no gamestate changes to perform. This may be minimal (players rolling dice in the die roller, updating the wiki for a minority of their results and never announcing anything on the blog) or could even be entirely secret (players sending private orders to the Emperor, which update secret variables).
Result
To a casual player of the game, it looks like nothing much is happening: even a game with active wiki gameplay can seem stagnant if the variables are subtle and the player doesn’t check the wiki page history. In cases where the main game actions are secret and invisible, even the most attentive player of the game may not know whether anyone else is actually playing. If some players start to assume that no game is really being played, they’re inclined to give up and idle out.
Solutions
Add noise to the game by having some of the larger game actions require a post to the blog, or have a mechanic that generates “game news” summaries periodically.

Therefore add the following as a new Mandate:

A Plan should require that dynastic gameplay be conducted largely in public, or should contain some reasonably frequent public-facing update of the Emperor.

Add a subrule to “Drafts and Plans” called “Revisions”

A Revision is a draft whose name contains a “/” and for which the section before that “/” is the name of another draft and the section after the “/” is the name of the Drafter who created the Revision. The contents of a revision should match that draft, but with one or more changes applied to it, and is considered to be a Revision of that Draft.

Revision are considered to be gamestate. If a Drafter has not already created a Revision for a Plan which is not their own, they may create a Revision for that Plan at any time. The list of each revision for a given plan is publicly tracked on the gamestate tracking page.

The Drafter who created a Revision is permitted to edit it, except in ways that would cause it to no longer be a Draft.

If there is a rule named “Drafts and Plans”, add the following text to that rule as a new paragraph:

Each Drafter other than the Supervisor has a publicly tracked Draft Date, which is blank if that Drafter’s Plan Link is blank. If a Drafter’s Plan Link is not blank, that Drafter’s Draft Date is the date and time to the minute rounded down that the wiki page containing the Draft named in that Drafter’s Plan Link was last edited.

In the rule “Reviews” replace “and the name of a Drafter that it is meant for” with:

, the date and time to the minute rounded down that Review was created, and the name of a Drafter that it is meant for

If the proposal “A Few Small Suggestions” failed, this proposal does nothing. Otherwise:
After the sentence “As an Action, any Drafter may add a Review.” add the text:

Drafters are not allowed to create a second Review meant for a particular Drafter if they already have an existing Review meant for said Drafter, though they are allowed to replace any of their previous Reviews with another Review, so long as it is meant for the same Drafter. A Drafter may not create a Review meant for themself.

If any Drafter has multiple Reviews meant for the same Drafter, remove all of said Reviews except the first one. If any Drafter has a Review meant for themself, remove it.

Create a new dynastic rule, “Drafts and Plans”, placing it at the start of the dynastic ruleset:

A Draft is a page on the wiki, created after 03:54:00 UTC on 18 May 2025, that contains a summary of the gameplay for a hypothetical future dynasty, together with at least two hypothetical dynastic rules that might exist in the early stages of that dynasty. The content of each Draft is flavour text, except for the purposes of a) determining whether or not that Draft is in fact a Draft and b) determining whether or not that Draft complies with a Mandate. The names of Drafts are flavour text.

Each Drafter other than the Supervisor has a publicly tracked Plan Link, which is either blank or the name of a Draft that Drafter created. Plan Links are flavour text. A Drafter can set their own Plan Link to any valid value at any time (except during Hiatus). The Draft named by a Drafter’s Plan Link is known as that Drafter’s Plan.

While a Draft is a Plan, it is considered gamestate. The Drafter who created it is permitted to edit it, except in ways that would cause it to no longer be a Draft.

In the rule “Reviews”, if it exists, replace

A Review is a flavor text string of at most 500 characters,

with

A Review is a flavor text string of at most 500 characters, and Scores for Theme, Mechanics and Style (where each Score is a number ranging from 1 to 5),

If any Reviews exist, set all their Scores to 3.

I love this theme but it is definitely too intensive for my availability right now, sorry. Please idle me.

Add a rule named “Scoring” with the following text:

Each Drafter has a publicly tracked number named Score that defaults to 0 and must be between 0 and 10.

As a Daily Action called a Scoring, a Drafter may select a Drafter other than themselves who has a non-blank Plan Link, and then increase or decrease the selected Drafter’s Score by 1, provided the resulting Score is a legal value. A Drafter’s Score may not be decreased from a performance of a Scoring more than once in a 24-hour period.

Any time a Drafter’s Plan Link is changed, that Drafter’s Score is reset to 0.

Create a new Rule called Reviews with the following text:

There is a publicly tracked list of Reviews, defaulting to empty. A Review is a flavor text string of at most 500 characters, along with the name of the Drafter who created it and the name of a Drafter that it is meant for. As an Action, any Drafter may add a Review. A Review should include genuine feedback on the Plan of the Drafter it is meant for.

If Proposal: The Wires Behind the Buzzer was not enacted then this proposal has no further effect.

Add a new dynastic rule to the ruleset, called Essays and Citations, with the following text:

As a weekly action, a Drafter may make a Citiation. Making a Citation is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Make a Citation post, which is a post to the blog in the Story Post: Votable Matters category, highlighting a passage from an essay held in the Essays category on the Blognomic wiki that was authored by a Drafter or idle Drafter other than themselves. In the same post, they should distill the passage thus highlighted into a sentence that begins “A Plan should” or “A plan should not”; said sentence should represent a sincere attempt to convey the render the sense of the highlighted passage into a precept that can be legally followed by a Drafter when composing a Plan.
* When the Citation Post can be closed (see below), close it, marking it as Popular or Unpoplar based on the votes cast upon it. If it was Popular at the time that it was closed, add the sentence that it contained to the list of Mandates in the rule Mandates, preceded by an ID number that is not being used by any existing Mandate or any Mandate in the proposal queue.

A Citation Post is open when it is posted and can be closed if it has been open for 48 hours or more. While it is open, it may be voted on, as per the rule Votes.

Create a new dynastic rule, “Mandates” (in the text below, the * represents the start of a list item):

This rule contains a list of Mandates, each of which is a recommendation that Plans should have some specific (but potentially subjective) property, together with a two-digit ID number that is unique among Mandates. Failing to follow a Mandate does not on its own cause a Plan to be invalid.

A proposal which would (if enacted) change the list of Mandates, and whose text would make no other changes to the ruleset or gamestate, is known as a Mandate Proposal.

The list of Mandates is as follows:
* 10: Plans should not envision Dynasties for which a player would be at a significant disadvantage if they checked the game no more often than once every 24 hours.

Each Drafter has a publicly tracked list of Claims, a possibly empty list of ID numbers of Mandates (without duplicates). At any time, except during Hiatus, a Drafter may change their Claims to the list of ID numbers of Mandates that they believe their own Plan satisfies (the list may not contain any ID numbers of Mandates that they do not believe their own Plan satisfies).

Create a new dynastic rule, “Drafts and Plans”:

A Draft is a page on the wiki, created after 03:54:00 UTC on 18 May 2025, that contains a summary of the gameplay for a hypothetical future dynasty, together with at least two hypothetical dynastic rules that might exist in the early stages of that dynasty. The contents of a Draft are not rulestext, and the meaning of each rule is interpreted without reference to the name of Drafts and without reference to the content of Drafts (for example, if a rule uses a term and it is not defined in the Ruleset, the term has its standard English meaning (or no meaning if the standard English meaning does not apply) even if a Draft attempts to define it; and if a rule attempts to refer to something by name, it cannot name something in a Draft, nor the Draft itself).

Each Drafter other than the Supervisor has a publicly tracked Plan Link, which is either blank or the name of a Draft that Drafter created. Plan Links are flavour text. A Drafter can set their own Plan Link to any valid value at any time (except during Hiatus). The Draft named by a Drafter’s Plan Link is known as that Drafter’s Plan.

While a Draft is a Plan, it is considered gamestate. The Drafter who created it is permitted to edit it, except in ways that would cause it to no longer be a Draft.

The Drafters filed into the drafting room, eager to take on their first assignment, but with some trepidation. Would they really be able to live up to the standards of such a large nomic?

They started reading the task they were given. “Write a summary of the gameplay for a hypothetical future BlogNomic dynasty, together with at least two hypothetical dynastic rules that might exist in the early stages of that dynasty.” Well, that seemed simple enough. New Emperors did that all the time, often at short notice.

A buzzer sounded, and the task description got a little longer. It was asking for changes, adding restrictions, twists to make the job of drafting harder. Still, one new requirement wasn’t too bad; all that was needed was a few changes here and there, maybe rethinking an idea or two.

Then the buzzer sounded again, and again, and again. Restrictions piled up: anything from well-thought-out “don’t do this, or it’ll cause problems in your dynasty” advice, to somewhat eclectic gameplay preferences which somehow all had to be satisfied simultaneously, to totally arbitrary rules that seemed to be there for no reason to trip people up. It was going to be a long day.

Change Agent to Drafter and Concierge to Supervisor. Repeal all dynastic rules. Remove “Reinitialisation”, “Virtual Actions”, and “Precondition Unidling” from the list of Building Blocks; include “Everyone’s Playing” (adding it) and “Revisions Allowed” (retainng it). Change the gamestate tracking page to “Drafting Board”. Imperial Styles: Guide, Hands-Off, Wildcard.

I’m not sure if I’ll be able to dedicate enough time to BlogNomic in the near future to properly run a dynasty (especially as the main theme I have in mind requires a Casual level of Imperial tracking, which I can’t guarantee that I’ll be able to provide).

Normally in this situation I’d pass the mantle (it was the original purpose of the mantle-pass rule), but due to anti-pooling measures, mantle-passing isn’t available at the moment. Additionally, some people have (weirdly) started valuing player success via dynasty-as-Emperor count rather than win count (e.g. all the various “mantle roll” agreements we’ve historically seen don’t make sense unless you do that), which gives a perverse incentive to start a dynasty and immediately abandon it, rather than letting someone else start a presumably better dynasty. Finally, as far as I can tell, the core rules actually mandate that I must post an Ascension Address and don’t give any option not to (the rule says “If the game is in an Interregnum then the new Concierge must make an Ascension Address” which, according to our usual precedents, allows players to treat the Ascension Address as having been posted even if I don’t actually make one).

As such, I can see four main lines forwards:
1. a proposal for a core rules change, or a dynastic rule to override the core rules, to allow for a mantle pass and let someone else run a dynasty (but, it might be hard to decide who to pass to, given that this was a purely solo win with no agreements other than temporary single-Break-In agreements with my randomly selected team);
2. I start a dynasty and try to muddle through it as best I can, but it’s at risk of collapsing due to a disengaged Emperor possibly failing to do tracking properly or to guide enough of the gameplay for the other players to build a ruleset (but this is not hopeless – I may be able to devote enough time to at least keep the dynasty going, although it’s unlikely that anything spectacular would happen);
3. I start a dynasty but, early in the dynasty, let someone else take over as Emperor via dynastic rule (I think I can create gameplay compatible with doing that);
4. “BlogNomic has a perfectly good way to determine who should run a dynasty – it’s called a dynasty” – start a new short dynasty whose purpose is to decide how to continue, in the style of ais523 III

I am also not convinced by my theme idea; it falls into the area of “I’m envisioning a particular sort of gameplay but we might not be able to implement it correctly” that has plagued most of the dynasties recently (since I unidled, there have been many dynasties where I clearly understood the Imperial vision, but actually translating it into rules was much harder and the ruleset ended up not matching the vision at all).

Do people have suggestions on what the best option to move forwards might be (any of the above, or perhaps an option I’m missing?).

There’s a lot of hidden information that could do with being revealed, and a lot of potentially interesting topics to discuss with respect to strategy in the dynasty, so here’s a post-dynastic discussion thread.

In the subrule “Other” of the Appendix rule “Keywords”, in the definition of “Hiatus”, change

If BlogNomic is on Hiatus, Dynastic Actions may not be taken (except where the rule defining the action explicitly requires it to be taken during Hiatus), and Proposals may not be submitted or Resolved.

to

If BlogNomic is on Hiatus, Dynastic Actions may not be taken (except where the rule defining the action explicitly requires it to be taken during Hiatus), and Proposals may not be submitted or Resolved unless a core rule permits doing so for that type of Hiatus.

“If a particular Agent currently has more Successes than every other Agent, and also had more Successes than every other Agent immediately prior to the most recent Breaking In action, and also gained more than 1 Fame or more than 1 Infamy in the most recent Breaking In action, that Agent has achieved victory. “

I had more Successes than every other Agent before the most recent Break-In and still do, and gained 2 Infamy (my Infamy was set to 0 and then to 2). As such, despite being caught by the Camera Trap, I have achieved victory.

A whirr of a security camera, a flash of torches, a shout in the night.

Burglar DoomedIdeas encountered Guard Qenya.

Burglar Ais523 encountered a Camera Trap.

Remove the following text from the rule “Building Blocks”:-

Some rules on the Building Blocks page are listed as being Recommended; if the new Concierge makes no statement on Building Blocks rules to be included in their Ascension Address then the Recommended Building Blocks are considered to have been selected.

A familiar-sounding door hinge creaks again.

One Guard has a route with F in the 4th and 9th Spots.

Remove the rule “Shenanigan Detection” from the dynastic ruleset (rather than the Shadow ruleset).

Set the current Phase to Planning the Break-In.

An unoiled door squeaks twice.

One Guard has a route with F in the 4th and 9th Spots.

Repeal “Shenanigan Detection”.

No Shenanigans were detected.

In “The Break-In”, replace “If the Spot at that position in that Agent’s Route has an Extra Spot that is Connected to it” with:-

If the Spot at that position in that Agent’s Route has an Extra Spot (at that position in that Agent’s Route) that is Connected to it

Uphold the Concierge’s attempted performances of the “If the Spot at that position in that Agent’s Route has an Extra Spot” steps in the Break-In Action they undertook on the 10th of May.

Enact a new rule, “Room Service”:-

At any time the Concierge may update the Fame, Infamy and Successes of Agents to the values they would currently have if the most recent Break-In action had instead been processed under the interpretation that “has an Extra Spot that is Connected to it” included Extra Spots set by other Agents, and then repeal this rule.

The Concierge may not perform any dynastic actions outside of this rule while this rule exists.

If https://blognomic.com/archive/what_happened_last_night1 passes, this proposal does nothing.

Add a new rule called “Shenanigan Detection” and give it the following text

The Agents named JonathanDark, Darknight, qenya and Clucky should each at their earliest convivence, privately communicate with the Concierge either a claim of “Shenanigans” or “No Shenanigans”.

Once all four Agents have done so, the Concierge should once time perform a “Shenanigan Resolution” which is an atomic action consisting of the following steps
- If at least one of the Agents listed above (JonathanDark, Darknight, qenya or Clucky) claimed “No Shenanigans” make a post to the blog indicating that the no Shenanigans were detected
- If instead all four agents listed above (JonathanDark, Darknight, qenya and Clucky) claimed “Shenanigans”, make a post to the blog indicating that Shenanigans were detected and list the following information that was privately tracked by the Concierge for each of those Agents at the time that the most recent Breaking In was performed:
* That Agent’s complete Route
* That Agent’s Groundwork, if it was non-blank
* That Agent’s Skill and Flaw

Until a Shenanigan Resolution resolution has been posted, the Phase is always Setting Patrols and the Concierge may not perform the Patrol Assessment action

Add a new rule named “The Reveal” with the following text:

Before the next performance of Patrol Assessment, at their earliest convenience the Concierge must perform a Reveal, which is an action in which the Concierge submits a Story Post containing the following information that was privately tracked by the Concierge for each Agent at the time that the most recent Breaking In was performed:
* That Agent’s complete Route
* That Agent’s Groundwork, if it was non-blank
* That Agent’s Skill and Flaw

If the Concierge no longer has the above information, the Concierge must instead indicate that in that Story Post. After the Concierge performs a Reveal, they should repeal this rule.

Create a new rule, “Success Continuity”:

This rule cannot be repealed by Dynastic Reset. Once a Dynastic Reset completes, the text of this rule changes to “Each Agent has a publicly tracked count of Successes, defaulting to the median value of Successes among all other Agents, rounded down.” and (at the same time as the previous change) each Agent’s Successes is set to the number of Successes they had immediately prior to the most recent enactment of a Declaration of Victory (or to its default value if they were not an Agent at that time), except that if the Custodian is an Agent their Successes are set to 0.

In “Guards and Burglars”, change:

If a particular Agent currently has more Successes than every other Agent, and also had more Successes than every other Agent immediately prior to the most recent Breaking In action, that Agent has achieved victory.

to

If a particular Agent currently has more Successes than every other Agent, that Agent has achieved victory if at least one of the following statements is true:
* That Agent had more Successes than every other Agent immediately prior to the most recent Breaking In action;
* That Agent is a Guard, and has at least two more Successes than every Burglar;
* That Agent is a Burglar, and has at least two more Successes than every Guard.

If “A More Meaningful Round of Play” is not enacted, the rest of this Proposal has no effect.

In the rule “Guards and Burglars”, replace “more than 1 Fame or 1 Infamy” with “more than 1 Fame or more than 1 Infamy”

In the rule “Guards and Burglars”, after the text “and also had more Successes than every other Agent immediately prior to the most recent Breaking In action,” add the following text:

and also gained more than 1 Fame or 1 Infamy in the most recent Breaking In action,

In the rule “The Sideline”, replace the text “For the purposes of The Break-In, if an Agent is Sidelined they are not considered to be a Guard or a Burglar unless explicitly stated otherwise”, with the following text:

A Sidelined Agent who would be a Burglar if they were not Sidelined is considered a Sidelined Burglar. A Sidelined Agent who would be a Guard if they were not Sidelined is considered a Sidelined Guard. For the purposes of The Break-In, a Sidelined Guard is not considered to be a Guard and a Sidelined Burglar is not considered to be a Burglar, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Set the Agent named Clucky’s Infamy to 8.

In the rule “Guards and Burglars”, after the text “and also had more Successes than every other Agent immediately prior to the most recent Breaking In action,” add the following text:

and also gained Successes in the most recent Breaking In action,

Set the Agent named Clucky’s Infamy to 8

A quiet yet unsuccessful evening for the burglars, who left the building empty-handed.

Burglar Darknight encountered Guard JonathanDark.

No Camera Traps were triggered.

In “Rumors”, change

If they have not done so within the past 24 hours, as a Virtual Action an Agent may add a string to the Rumors.

to

If they have not done so since the most recent Break-In, as a Virtual Action an Agent may add a string to the Rumors.

If it is the Planning the Break-In phase, make this change to both the dynastic ruleset and shadow ruleset, rather than just the shadow ruleset.

In both the dynastic ruleset and the shadow ruleset, in the rule “The Break-In”, in the Breaking In atomic action, after the text “plus 4 for every artifact they are holding.” add the following text:

Privately inform that Burglar of the Trait and Type of each Artifact that they are holding, if any, or the fact that they are not holding any Artifact.

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

Each Agent has a Bet which is privately tracked by the Concierge and is either empty (which is the default) or consists of the following:
* Type, which may be Guard or Burglar
* Patsy, which is the name of an Agent other than that Agent

As a Virtual Action, an Agent who is not a Civilian may set their Bet to empty, or may set the Type and Patsy of their Bet, as long as the Patsy’s Bet is either empty or does not have both that Agent as its Patsy and the same Type as that Agent’s Bet.

In the rule “The Break-In”, in the Breaking In atomic action, just before the step “Set Rumors to an empty list” insert the following steps:

* For each non-Civilian Agent that has a non-empty Bet, if that Agent’s Bet Type matches the type of Agent whose Successes were increased in the previous step, increase that Agent’s Successes by 1 and increase the Successes of that Bet’s Patsy by 1, otherwise decrease that Agent’s Successes by 1 and decrease the Successes of that Bet’s Patsy by 1.
* Set each Agent’s Bet to empty

In “The Break-In”, change

Post a blog entry announcing the end of the Break In, and naming all Burglars

to

Post a blog entry announcing the end of the Break In, specifying the Location of each Artifact, and naming all Burglars

If it is the Planning the Break-In phase and at least five EVCs contain the word “tonight”, then make these changes to both the dynastic and shadow ruleset, rather than just the shadow ruleset.

In “The Break-In”, replace the word “Discovered” with “Sightings”.

Doors creak and slam around the old hotel.

One Guard has a route with I in the 4th and 9th Spots. Another has a route with N in the 4th and 9th Spots.

In the “Virtual Actions” Building Block, replace “If the action is successful, apply any specified effects on the gamestate and/or perform any specified actions on behalf of the Agent.” with:-

If the action is successful, apply any specified effects on the gamestate and/or perform any specified actions on behalf of the Agent, and indicate to the Agent that their action has succeeded.

Lendunistus idles out after seven days with no posts or comments. Quorum remains 5.

In the rule “Preparation”, add a row to the table with the following text;

|-
! Plant Decoy
|
* The unique type and trait of an Artifact that exists in the publicly tracked list of Artifacts and is not in the Target of another unresolved Plant Decoy initiated by a Guard.
* The letter of a Spot that meets all of the following criteria:
** Is not an Ingress or a Station
** Is not the Location of an Artifact
** Is not in the Target of another unresolved Plant Decoy initiated by a Guard.
|| Onsite || If the Agent is a Guard, the Location of the specified Artifact is privately tracked by the Concierge to be the Spot specified in that Plant Decoy action rather than the original Location of that Artifact, but the publicly tracked Home of that Artifact remains unchanged. If the Agent is not a Guard, this Prep has no Effect.

In the rule “Preparation”, add a row to the table with the following text;

|-
! Plant Decoy
|
* The unique type and trait of an Artifact that exists in the publicly tracked list of Artifacts
* The letter of a Spot that meets all of the following criteria:
** Is not an Ingress or a Station
** Is not the Location of an Artifact
** Is not the Target of another unresolved Plant Decoy
|| Onsite || If the Agent is a Guard, the Location of the specified Artifact is privately tracked by the Concierge to be the Spot specified in that Plant Decoy action rather than the original Location of that Artifact, but the publicly tracked Home of that Artifact remains unchanged. If the Agent is not a Guard, this Prep has no Effect.

In the rule “Preparation”, add a row to the table with the following text;

|-
! Plant Decoy
|
* The unique type and trait of an Artifact that exists in the publicly tracked list of Artifacts
* The letter of a Spot that meets all of the following criteria:
** Is not an Ingress or a Station
** Is not Connected to an Ingress or a Station
** Is not the Location of an Artifact
** Is not the target of another unresolved Plant Decoy
|| Onsite || If the Agent is a Guard, the Location of the specified Artifact is privately tracked by the Concierge to be the Spot specified in that Plant Decoy action rather than the original Location of that Artifact, but the publicly tracked Home of that Artifact remains unchanged. If the Agent is not a Guard, this Prep has no Effect.

In the “Building Blocks” section of the ruleset, create a new rule, “Interdynastic Scoreboard”:

Each Agent and idle Agent has an Interdynastic Score, tracked on the [[Interdynastic Scoreboard]] wiki page (only nonzero scores are listed individually – zero scores are combined into a single “everyone else” entry). Interdynastic Score is a number defaulting to 0. When this rule is added to the ruleset, if it was in the ruleset previously, each Agent and idle Agent regains the Interdynastic Score they had at the time that this rule was repealed (if any).

Rules other than this one can only change an Agent’s Interdynastic Score as a consequence of a Declaration of Victory, and only by increasing it. An Agent’s Interdynastic Score cannot be increased by more than 100 over the course of a single dynasty. When writing proposals that add victory conditions, Agents are encouraged to make that proposal also amend the dynastic ruleset such that upon the enactment of a Declaration of Victory, it increases each Agent’s Interdynastic Score by a number from 0 to 100 based on how close that Agent was to winning.

At the end of the last paragraph of “Guards and Burglars”, add

When a Declaration of Victory is enacted, each Agent gains Interdynastic Score equal to that Agent’s Successes, times 100, divided by the maximum number of Successes across all Agents, rounded to the nearest integer.

In the Effect of the Prep “Back Door” in “Preparation”, change

Until the end of the next Break-In, the specified Spot is considered to connect to “Grounds” for the purpose of determining whether Routes submitted by Burglars are complete.

to

Until the end of the next Break-In, the specified Spot is considered to connect to “Grounds” for the purpose of determining whether Routes submitted by Burglars are complete, as long as that lettered Spot appears at least twice in that Route.

In “The Back Door”, change

When this action is performed, until the next Break-In action has completed, the specified Spot is considered to connect to “Grounds” for the purpose of determining whether Routes submitted by Burglars are complete.

to

When this action is performed, until the next Break-In action has completed, the specified Spot is considered to connect to “Grounds” for the purpose of determining whether Routes submitted by Burglars are complete, as long as that lettered Spot appears at least twice in that Route.

Make these changes to both the main and shadow rulesets

Add “The Round Number is publicly tracked on the gamestate tracking page and defaults to 4”

In “The Break-In” replace

If any Burglar who Encountered no Guards during this atomic action is holding at least one Artifact, increase the Successes of all Burglars by one, including Sidelined Burglars; otherwise, increase the Successes of all Guards by 1, including Sidelined Guards.

with

If any Burglar who Encountered no Guards during this atomic action is holding at least one Artifact, increase the Successes of all Burglars by the round number, including Sidelined Burglars; otherwise, increase the Successes of all Guards by the round number, including Sidelined Guards.
Increase the Round Number by 1

Replace Agent’s successes with the following

ais523: 6
Clucky:  6
Darknight: 3
DoomedIdeas: 5
JonathanDark: 0
lendunistus: 1
qenya: 4
trapdoorspyder: 2

In the rule “Preparation Actions”, add a subrule named “Decoy” with the following text;

“Plant Decoy” is a virtual Preparation Action that any Guard can perform, and the following must be specified to perform it:
* The unique type and trait of an Artifact that exists in the publicly tracked list of Artifacts
* The letter of a Spot that is not an Ingress or a Station, is not Connected to an Ingress or a Station, and is not the Location of an Artifact

When Plant Decoy is resolved, the Location of the specified Artifact is privately tracked by the Concierge to be the Spot specified in that Plant Decoy action rather than the original Location of that Artifact, but the publicly tracked Home of that Artifact remains unchanged.

In the Appendix rule “Representations of the Gamestate”, replace:

The historical fact of the occurrence of a defined game action is itself considered to be gamestate, tracked in the history of whatever resource is used to track the gamestate modified by that action

with

The historical fact of the occurrence of a defined game action is itself considered to be gamestate. Unless the rule defining the action specifies otherwise, this occurrence is tracked in the history of whatever resource is used to track the gamestate modified by that action

In the Building Blocks rule “Virtual Actions”, add the following text:

When the performance of a Virtual Action causes the modification of publicly tracked gamestate, the Concierge should publicly track the historical fact of the occurrence of that Virtual Action on behalf of the Agent who initiated that Virtual Action, using the Concierge’s own name in that public tracking, and privately track the historical fact of the occurrence of that Virtual Action using the name of the Agent who initiated that Virtual Action.