Saturday, July 08, 2023

Proposal: A Change in Plans

Fails 2-7 -SingularByte

Adminned at 09 Jul 2023 21:38:03 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule to the ruleset. Call it “Reassignment” and give it the following text:

If they haven’t already, a Machinist may privately send a request to the Great Machine with the words “Reassign X”, where X is the name of a Machinist. At their earliest convenience, the Great Machine must secretly randomly choose a Reserve Agenda that was not authored by X and swap it with a secretly randomly chosen Agenda owned by X, then privately inform X of the swapped Agendas.

There’s a few ways to use this:

* Target another Machinist who you think might be close to fulfilling one of their Agendas
* Target yourself if most or all of your Agendas aren’t working out for you
* Target yourself if you were the target of this from someone else, in the hopes (but no guarantee) of getting your previous Agenda back

Comments

Bucky:

08-07-2023 19:29:00 UTC

401 or 402 characters; the rule number kills it.

JonathanDark: he/him

08-07-2023 19:30:41 UTC

Is it? I used https://wordcounter.net/character-count and got 398.

Bucky:

08-07-2023 19:34:48 UTC

It is, once the automatically added rule number from a new rule is included in the count.

Josh: he/they

08-07-2023 19:48:14 UTC

Don’t reckon the numbers count as they only appear in the table of contents; if they do then the title needs to be counted twice (once for the rule, and again for the contents every).

Bucky:

08-07-2023 19:51:56 UTC

Depends on the reader’s “Auto-number headings” setting, https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Special:Preferences under “Appearance”!

However, the underlying wiki markup requires a number of = signs equal to the length of the section number, and that doesn’t vary by user.

Josh: he/they

08-07-2023 20:05:12 UTC

I’m also not sure that I’d agree that wikimedia markup counts as added characters, but would accept an amendment to clarify.

For me, the table of contents itself doesn’t count as part of the ruleset in general, and certainly doesn’t count as part of the dynastic ruleset specifically.

JonathanDark: he/him

08-07-2023 20:15:05 UTC

If someone does propose an amendment to clarify, I’d suggest also adding a link to a publicly-available tool to do the counting, such as the one I mentioned in my previous comment, so that we can all agree on the same result.

Until then, since there doesn’t seem to be unanimous agreement on whether or not my Proposal would cause an excess of characters, I’m going to proceed as if it doesn’t, unless a CfJ blocks or reverts it.

lendunistus: he/him

08-07-2023 21:53:16 UTC

this can only be used once ever in the whole dynasty

even then, I’d vote against: being told “oh your wins gone now lmao” isn’t very fun

lendunistus: he/him

08-07-2023 21:53:34 UTC

*even if it was fixed

JonathanDark: he/him

08-07-2023 22:11:22 UTC

I fixed the “once” issue. As for the rest, that’s a fair point. Let’s see how people vote.

Bucky:

08-07-2023 23:16:03 UTC

against

lendunistus: he/him

09-07-2023 06:02:32 UTC

against per my complaints

if we want to provide people with the opportunity to reset, we could just flip on reinitialisation

Kevan: City he/him

09-07-2023 07:07:08 UTC

against per Lendunistus.

lemon: she/her

09-07-2023 08:19:28 UTC

imperial

Josh: he/they

09-07-2023 09:00:24 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

09-07-2023 09:11:20 UTC

against
This has the additional problem that it’s effectively secret, meaning that even if someone was in the lead but lost one of their agendas, there’s the very real risk that they’re going to be hit by a bunch more reassignments afterwards to just take them out of the game completely.

It would be too risky to take someone’s word for it that they’ve been reassigned.

Lulu: she/her

09-07-2023 13:39:36 UTC

against

Maldor: he/him

09-07-2023 17:52:31 UTC

against