Prompt: Board Game
Reminder that this is a Secret Acrotype, so send your Backronyms directly to me for posting.
Welcome to BlogNomic, a self-modifying game where changing the rules is a move. Players make blog posts proposing alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history, or join our Discord. New players are always welcome to join the game at any time.
Prompt: Board Game
Reminder that this is a Secret Acrotype, so send your Backronyms directly to me for posting.
Add the following as a new paragraph in the rule “Favorites”
As a Virtual Round Action, a Wordsmith may remove a word from their Favorites.
Allowing players to slowly shift their favorites list if they decide they want to change its layout over time
Race to capture a fellow player’s heart tokens before they do the same to each other. Buy time by causing breakups and breakdowns, because only two of you will win.
In the rule Acronym, change
Set the current Acrotype to a publicly randomly selected Acrotype. Repeat this step if the selected Acrotype is the same as the Acrotype selected in the most recent Acrogenerate before this one.
Perform the Steps listed in the table that are associated with the current Acrotype, in the order in which they are listed for that Acrotype.
to read
Set the current Acrotype to be Secret, and then perform the Steps for that Arcotype, ignoring the result and repeating this step if the selected Acrotype is the same as the Acrotype selected in the most recent Acrogenerate before this one.
Anonymous entries might be more fun.
In “The Threshold”, remove the definition of the Finalize action, and replace “Final Acronym” with “Endgame Acronym”.
In “Acronym”, replace “If the state of the blog is Endgame, cease performing the rest of this action and instead Perform the Finalize action” with:-
If the state of the blog is Endgame and a single Wordsmith has more points than any other Wordsmith (ignoring any Wordsmiths that are not allowed to achieve Victory for other reasons), skip the rest of this action and instead make a blog post declaring that Wordsmith victorious; upon doing so, that Wordsmith achieves victory
Replace “If the result is greater than or equal to the Threshold” with:-
If the result is greater than or equal to the Threshold (or if the state of the blog is Endgame)
Tied endgame scores are quite likely to happen, with how close the scores are. We could just run another round of Endgame if that happens, instead of flipping a coin.
In the rule “Acronym”, replace the text “If the result is greater than or equal to the Threshold” with “If the result is less than or equal to the Threshold”.
In the rule “Scoring”, move the text “, or twice the result if the state of the blog is Endgame” to just after the text “and add the result to the Points of the author of that Backronym”.
Threshold increases as the median Wordsmith Points increases. I’m pretty sure we want the chances of going into the Endgame to be greater as the Threshold increases, not less.
Example: When the Threshold is 1 (median Wordsmith Points is 21), the chance of rolling greater than or equal to 1 is 100%. When the Threshold is 20 (median Wordsmith Points is 40), the chance of rolling reater than or equal to 20 is 5%.
The other part of this is when “Replacing Unoccupied Sets Tactfully” was enacted, it pushed out the doubling of Points gained during Endgame to a different sentence, likely because the author didn’t anticipate the Proposal that added the Endgame doubling clause in. I’m attempting to restore the original intention that I think it was.
A co-operative game about a government-sponsored mech programme battling extradimensional kaiju incursions.
In the latest installment of the viral Kitchen Exorcism Venture board game series, we enter into a pizzeria and attempt to clear away a ghost which has been maliciously sneaking anchovies onto the customer’s orders. Will the crew find the ghost quickly enough, or has it been a vengeful saboteur the whole time?
Add a subrule to “Acronym” called “Nicknames” with the following text
Each Wordsmith may have a Nickname. Nicknames are publicly tracked strings that are between 3 and 10 letters long and consist only of alphabetical letters. If the only thing a proposal does is change the nickname of the wordsmith who is the author of that proposal, such a proposal does not count against that author’s limit of 2 pending proposals and may be enacted at any time provided it still has a quorum of FOR votes
Replace steps of the the “Names” Acrotype with the following
* For the purposes of the rest of these steps, if a Wordsmith has a Nickname their Name is considered to be their Nickname rather than their actual Name
* Create a set containing the names of all active Wordsmiths.
* In that set, remove the name of any Wordsmith selected in a Acrogenerate action performed with an Acrotype of “Names” this dynasty (unless this would remove all Wordsmiths, in which case skip this step)
* Publicly randomly select a Wordsmith’s name from that set.
* Set the Acronym to that Wordsmith’s name, with any characters other than alphabetical letters removed and with it trimmed to only its first 10 letters if it would otherwise be more than 10 letters long
Turns out the blog has a limit of 100 words in a proposal title.
At 14 letters, “Trapdoorspyder” could easily run into problems where people can’t otherwise post a valid Backronym and are limited to using really short words. Would rather just use “TDS” or some other shorter name they want to pick.
The king is in poor health, and as such the real political power rests with his eight Viziers. Collect power, exert influence, and looks for ways to shift and twist the story towards your favor in this drafting game for 3-8 players
In the rule “Backronym”, after the text “The author of such a Backronym is privately tracked by the Puzzler, and the Backronym is instead posted under the name of the Puzzler.” add the following text:
If the Acrotype is Secret, the Puzzler may also create and post a Backronym for which they themselves are the author.
In the rule “Scoring”, insert the following as the second step in Resolving a Backronym:
* If the original author of that Backronym was the Puzzler, skip to the step that begins with the text “Post a comment”.
and in the same rule, before the text “For each word in the title of that Backronym that includes all the letters of a Buzzword” add the text “If the original author of that Backronym is not the Puzzler,”
When the Acrotype is Secret, the Puzzler can add in their own Backronym to help obscure the authors of the others, but nobody gains or loses Points on the Puzzler’s Backronym.
Give the following Wordsmiths 1 point each:
Bucky
Trapdoorspyder
Josh
There was a three hour window in which people could collect their Proposalnym point from “RUST”. Not really fair to the people who weren’t online to collect it.
In “Rules and Votable Matters” in the Appendix, replace
If the Puzzler has voted DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, they are not considered to be a Wordsmith for the purposes of totaling quorum on that Proposal. Votes of DEFERENTIAL made by other Wordsmiths on the same Proposal are not considered to be valid, but the Wordsmiths who made them still contribute to quorum
with
If the Puzzler has voted DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal, they (and any other Wordsmiths who have voted DEFERENTIAL on it) are not considered to be a Wordsmith for the purposes of totaling quorum on that Proposal.
We’ve had a few cases this dynasty of players voting DEF on the Emperor’s DEF, and because these votes “are not considered to be valid”, we’ve had to duly wait (in some cases for the full 48 hour proposal timeout) to see if they might cast a FOR/AGA vote on it, in the same way that we’d wait for someone who hadn’t voted at all.
Maybe it would make more sense to also count these votes as abstentions? Even in cases where the player DEF is cast before the Imperial DEF, it still seems fair to interpret it as “I will vote FOR if the Emperor votes for, AGAINST if they vote against, and abstain if they abstain”, if they don’t check back in later to reconsider their vote.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 18:54:32 UTC
Originally, the motto of Sir Edwin’s Academy had been something to do with having strength in the face of adversity. Then adversity had come knocking at their doorstep, and half the faculty left in the middle of the night. The phone lines were down. The lights kept flickering. The wrought-iron fence had grown 4 feet taller by sunrise. It was very clear that the Academy had entered the Borderlands– what was less clear was how they were going to get out.
The principal, of course, decided that they weren’t. He’d run the boarding school for decades now. With an entire school’s worth of children and young adults, staying was much safer than any treck outside could be. They had plenty of food in the industrial freezers, and the gardens could be expanded to take over the lawn. He drafted a plan, recruited the near-graduates and the remaining teachers, and started turning Sir Edwin’s into a fortress.
It’s been years since Sir Edwin’s Academy changed. Plenty of the graduates enter into the Borderlands, but many stay, building and refining the place that made them who they are. They’ve got training barracks now, armories and R&D labs, everything they need to keep conquering the wastes around them. Sawyer had been 13 when the Borderlands came knocking on their doorstep. He’d been terrified that next morning, surrounded by other scared kids, his favorite teacher missing from the dining hall. Now he’s anything but scared. He leads the uniform development team, reinforcing the armor each student wears when they exit school grounds. He came up with the RUST position himself, designed 80% of the current uniform on his own. Most of the students that were there that day remained in the Academy after graduation. They won’t run out on the place that raised them.
The motto of Sir Edwin’s Academy used to be something about having strength in the face of adversity. Now, Sir Edwin’s doesn’t have a motto. Its students no longer need one.
Withdrawn. Failed by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 04 Jul 2025 02:23:27 UTC
In the rule “Scoring”, replace “for each word in that Wordsmith’s Favorites that matched a word in the title of that Backronym, add 1 to that Wordsmith’s Points” with
for each word in that Wordsmith’s Favorites that matched a word in the title of that Backronym, add 2 to that Wordsmith’s Points
and in that same rule, insert the following step before the step “Post a comment to that Backronym containing all of the following”:
* For each word in that Backronym author’s Favorites that matched a word in the title of that Backronym, add 1 to that author’s Points and remove that word from that author’s Favorites.
Since everyone seemed to like the idea of Favorites, how about allowing you to gain a little bit of Points on your own Favorites, but more Points if you hold off and let someone else use a word in your Favorites?
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 18:50:48 UTC
Yea I have nothing for this section this time
Timed out, 4-1. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 04 Jul 2025 02:17:26 UTC
In the rule Scoring, after
Calculate the median value among all of the recorded numbers of that Backronym, rounded down to the nearest integer, and add the result to the Points of the author of that Backronym.
add the sentence:
If no such numbers were recorded, use the value 4 instead.
If the ruleset contains the text
At any time, a Wordsmith’s Generosity is the mean average of the value of their most recent Scorings on the Backronyms posted by other Wordsmiths in response to the preceding two Acrogenerates, not including the most recent Acrogenerate if there are currently open Backronyms posted in response to it.
add the following text after it:
For this calculation, the mean average of an empty collection is considered to be 2.15.
Do not choose an element of an empty set. Do not divide by zero.
Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 16:16:57 UTC
Append the following to the end of the subrule “buzzwords”:
If any of the Buzzwords are contained in the Word Bank, the Puzzler may remove them from the Buzzword list.
My calculations might be incorrect, but I believe there’s a slim potential for buzzwords that can’t be claimed because they were chosen as buzzwords while already being contained in the Word Bank.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 18:47:02 UTC
Having found that people were remarkably inept at doing away with their old, out-of-fashion clothes and therefore infrequently buying new, in-fashion clothes, clothing corporations begin hiring individuals to tutor people in environmentally friendly methods for getting rid of their new clothes so that there would be room in their closets for new ones.
Reached quorum 8 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 16:01:56 UTC
In the rule “Backronym”, change
The words “a”, “and”, “at”, “for”, “in”, “of”, “or” and “the”
to
The words “a”, “an”, “and”, “at”, “for”, “in”, “of”, “or” and “the”
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 14:13:37 UTC
Bob’s Consignment is looking for instructors familiar with all stages of readying damaged and/or soiled furniture for resale to train personnel at each of its individual outlets, with the objective of minimizing transshipping costs and ensuring uniform standards.
Reached quorum 5 votes to 1 with an IMP DEF and two unresolved DEFs. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 16:00:23 UTC
Add a dynastic rule called “The Threshold”
The Threshold is equal to the median point total of all Wordsmiths minus 20
The blog may or not be in a state of Endgame, and by default is not in a state of Endgame. The state of the blog is publicly tracked.
When the state of the blog is Endgame, then only Wordsmiths whose names are listed in the Endgame Wordsmiths list are considered Wordsmiths for the purposes of dynastic rules.
Endgame Transition is a Dynastic Action with the following steps:
* Add all current Wordsmiths to the Endgame Wordsmith list.
* Set the Acrotype to be Secret
* Perform the Steps listed in the table that are associated with the current Acrotype, in the order in which they are listed for that Acrotype.
* Set the Prompt to “Theme for a Future Blognomic Dynasty”
* Set the state of the blog to be Endgame
* Set every Wordsmith’s Status to Playing.
* Make a Story Post with a title that starts with the text “Final Acronym: ” followed by the value of Acronym.Finalize is a Dynastic Action with the following steps:
* If a single Wordsmith has more points than any other wordsmith, ignoring any Wordsmiths that are not allowed to achieve Victory for other reasons, that Wordsmith has achieved victory
* If multiple Wordsmiths have tied for the most points out of all Wordsmiths, again ignoring any Wordsmiths that are not allowed to achieve Victory for other reasons, publicly randomly select a Wordsmith out of those who have tied for the most points. That Wordsmith has achieved Victory
* In either case, make a post to the blog naming the Wordsmith who ahs achieved Victory
In “Resolving a Backronym” after “and add the result to the Points of the author of that Backronym” add “, or twice the result if the state of the blog is Endgame”
Add the following steps to the start of “Acrogenerate”
* If the state of the blog is Endgame, cease performing the rest of this action and instead Perform the Finalize action
* If the Threshold is at least 1, Roll a DICE20. If the result is greater than or equal to the Threshold cease performing the rest of this action and instead perform the Endgame Transition action
Adds some randomness to game end. So could pair nice with something like: https://blognomic.com/archive/rest_undisturbed_sweet_thane where not knowing when the dynasty is about to end means you gotta be careful with your scores
Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 1 vote to 7 (with 4 REVs) by Kevan.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 15:56:48 UTC
If there is a rule called “Proposalnym” then in it replace “As a Round Action, a Wordsmith who has posted a Proposalnym since the last time Acrogenerate was performed may claim 1 point.” with
A Wordsmith’s EVC on a Proposalnym should contain the word “Valid” if that Wordsmith believes the content of the proposal fits the title that was given to it.
When a Proposalnym is resolved, if a quorum of the EVCs made by Wordsmiths other than the Proposal’s author contain the word “Valid”, then the Proposal’s author gains 1 point; unless the author already gained a point from this method for the same Backronym in which case the author does not gain any points.
The Puzzler is considered to be a Wordsmith for the purposes of this rule.
Idea is to prevent people from simply throwing up proposals with meaningless titles, instantly withdrawing them, and scoring points from that method.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 14:08:05 UTC
The job of a raccoon urine sample tester is an important once, as it helps local governments keep track of the rate of disease in their cities. Normally, raccoons are harmless but if the RUST finds a high level of rabies or other diseases in the urine samples, they know countermeasures will need to be deployed.
Enacted 5 votes to 1 with no effect, no such rule as “Relationships”. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 15:56:07 UTC
In the rule “Relationships”, add a subrule named “Accusations” with the following text:
An Accusation is a Story Post where the title begins with the text “I accuse” followed by the name of a Wordsmith and no other text following that name. The author of an Accusation is known as the Prosecutor of that Accusation. The name of the Wordsmith in the title of an Accusation is known as the Defendant of that Accusation. As a Round Action, a Wordsmith may post an Accusation. An Accusation is either Open or Closed and defaults to Open.
At their earliest convenience, the Puzzler should perform a Ruling on the oldest Open Accusation. A Ruling is an atomic action with the following steps, where the terms Prosecutor and Defendant apply to that Accusation on which the Ruling is being performed:
* If that Prosecutor was named as that Defendant’s Rival at the time and date of the posting of that Accusation:
** That Prosecutor gains 1 Point.
** That Prosecutor is removed from that Defendant’s Rival.
** The Puzzler must post a comment to that Accusation with the text “X is guilty” where X is that Defendent.
* If that Prosecutor was not named as that Defendant’s Rival at the time and date of the posting of that Accusation:
** That Prosecutor loses 3 Points, to a minimum of 0.
** The Puzzler must post a comment to that Accusation with the text “X is innocent” where X is that Defendent.After a Ruling has been performed on an Accusation, that Accusation is Closed.
If you suspect that someone named you as their Rival, you could accuse them and stop being their Rival, but if you’re wrong, you’ll pay a penalty. The Points gain is not as large as the loss because of the strategic value of removing yourself as their Rival.
My intention is not to weaken the Rivals mechanic but to add an extra layer on it, but I’m open to arguments that it goes too far.
Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST (2 FOR, 1 IMP DEF, 1 null DEF, 1 REV, 4 AGA). Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 15:55:20 UTC
Add a new dynastic rule to the ruleset, galled Generosity in Marking:
Each Wordsmith has a Generosity, which is a score between 1 and 5 and which is derived from their own Scorings on other players’ Backronyms. At any time, a Wordsmith’s Generosity is the mean average of the value of their most recent Scorings on the Backronyms posted by other Wordsmiths in response to the preceding two Acrogenerates, not including the most recent Acrogenerate if there are currently open Backronyms posted in response to it.
Any Wordsmith whose Generosity is in the lowest quarter of Generosity values of all Wordsmiths may neither achieve nor declare Victory.
Popular, 6-2 with 1 DEF and Puzzler voting FOR. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 15:52:49 UTC
Enact a new rule, positioned after “Backronym”, called “Proposalnym”:-
If a Proposal has a title (not including the “Proposal:” prefix) that would be a valid title for a Backronym made at the moment of its posting, then it is a Proposalnym.
As a Round Action, a Wordsmith who has posted a Proposalnym since the last time Acrogenerate was performed may claim 1 point.
Really, I’m surprised that we haven’t been doing this anyway.
Hello! Earlier in this Dynasty, I messaged both Raven1207 and Darknight, as I had forgotten that No Private Communication was in effect. Raven1207 has provided the transcript of our conversation, but I would like to also provide the transcript of the conversation between Darknight and I.
—
DoomedIdeas — 6/19/2025 4:28 PM
Darknight- with both our names starting with D, the 4th most likely letter to be rolled, you and I are both severely disadvantaged by Josh’s proposal. Acronyms can be only 3 letters long- if we get something like BDC, we’re in a much worse situation than other players. Josh will rarely have to worry about the letter J appearing in an acronym, which is probably part of why he proposed it, but you and I are going to have to work around it pretty frequently. I suggest voting Against Josh’s proposal, and in your own proposal, allowing points for using your own name but not making it mandatory.
eberron — 6/19/2025 4:41 PM
Ah true. I haven’t worked the full details of my idea yet but I can cov
DoomedIdeas — 6/19/2025 4:42 PM
I might message Raven as well depending on how they vote, since R will come up about as often as D does- which is to say, about 5.5 times more often than J.
eberron — 6/19/2025 4:44 PM
True. Quick aside, I’m guessing 3 is the average for length rolls from John? I might be misreading his first proposal
DoomedIdeas — 6/19/2025 4:45 PM
No- it’s 3 minimum, 7 maximum, so probably around 5 on average.
They can end up as only 3 letters, if we get a bad roll- that’s what I meant.
eberron — 6/19/2025 4:47 PM
Ah k
—
My apologies for forgetting the rule, and for forgetting that I had messaged Raven1207 and Darknight. Thank you!
Timed out, 4-3 with 2 DEFs and reduced quorum due to Puzzler DEF. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 15:46:20 UTC
Repeal the rule “Relationships”.
Remove ” or that Wordsmith’s Rival” and “, or X+2 if the Scoring was made by the Backronym author’s Rival, unless X was a 1, in which case record it as the number of Wordsmiths for whom the author of that Backronym is named as their Rival” from the rule “Scoring”.
Players finding small reasons to give out 1-point reviews is feeling a bit harsh. Maybe we should repeal the Rivals system.
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 14:03:42 UTC
Boop
Adminned at 03 Jul 2025 14:00:11 UTC
My deepest condolences for the loss of your beloved lizard, sir.
Adminned at 02 Jul 2025 17:41:46 UTC
We’ll need to know how local congestion pricing would play within the integrated transport strategy. I’ll get the RUST on the line.
Popular, 7-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 02 Jul 2025 14:26:59 UTC
Add a new rule named “Favorites” with the following text:
Each Wordsmith has Favorites privately tracked by the Puzzler. Favorites are either empty or a list of 1 to 5 words, defaulting to empty. As a Virtual Round Action, a Wordsmith may add words to their Favorites, up to the maximum words allowed, as long as each of the words added to their Favorites meet all of the following criteria:
* The first letter of that word is not one of the letters in the current Acronym
* That word is not in the Word Bank
* That word is not one of the Filler Words
In the rule “Scoring”, insert the following step before the step “Post a comment to that Backronym containing all of the following”:
* For each Wordsmith who is not the author of that Backronym, for each word in that Wordsmith’s Favorites that matched a word in the title of that Backronym, add 1 to that Wordsmith’s Points and remove that word from that Wordsmith’s Favorites.
Get Points for successfully predicting what words your fellow Wordsmiths will use in future Backronyms if those letters come up.
Prompt: Job Title
Since it has came to the realization that No Private Communication active even to the beginning of this dynasty that I would like also bring up messages from Doom encouraging me to vote against a proposal earlier in the dynasty. More specifically on June 19th 8:37 PM-8:41 PM EST
A few minutes ago, Raven1207 started a group chat on Discord with Darknight and I. The transcript of said group chat is as follows:
—
Raven1207.2 — 11:28 PM
Boop
Hey 👋
DoomedIdeas — 11:28 PM
Hello!
What is this for?
Raven1207.2 — 11:29 PM
Well
No private communications is off, right?
DoomedIdeas — 11:30 PM
[A partial screenshot of the rule “No Private Communication”.]
Raven1207.2 — 11:30 PM
Oh nevermind
Raven1207.2 left the group. — 11:30 PM
—
I hope this report satisfies the rule. Thank you!