Thursday, March 18, 2021

Proposal: A Modest Proposal [Core] [Appendix]

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 20 Mar 2021 12:11:16 UTC

In the rule Victory and Ascension, change

When a DoV is Enacted, all other pending DoVs are Failed, and a new Dynasty begins in which the Player who made the DoV becomes the Dealer.

The new Dealer will make an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category. This should specify the Dealer’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and it may optionally specify that the terms “Player” and “Dealer” will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire Ruleset (where the replacement terms are different, and neither includes any words in a form in which they already appear in the non-dynastic Ruleset), and/or list a number of dynastic rules to keep. When such an Ascension Address is posted, the Ruleset is updated to reflect any changed terms, and any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed. Between the enactment of the DoV and the completion of any changes to the ruleset and gamestate mandated in the Ascension Address, no new DoV may be made and BlogNomic is on Hiatus.

to

When a DoV is Enacted, all other pending DoVs are Failed, the gamestate is upheld in full, the Player who posted the DoV becomes Dealer, and the game enters an Interregnum.

The new Dealer must then start a new dynasty by completing the following Atomic Action:

* Make an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category. This should specify the Dealer’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and it may optionally specify that dynasty-specific terms for “Player” and “Dealer” will be used in the Dynastic Ruleset (following the restrictions found in the rule Dynastic Role Terminology), and/or list a number of dynastic rules to keep (if none are specifed then the entire Dynastic Ruleset is repealed).
* Update the Dynastic Ruleset and the rule Dynastic Role Terminology to reflect any changed terms, and any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed.

Once this Atomic Action has been completed the Interregnum ends and the new dynasty begins.

Add the following to the end of the rule Dynasties:

An Interregnum is the period between dynasties, after a DoV has been enacted and before an Ascension Address has been posted. During an Interregnum the game is in hiatus; additionally, no DoVs may be made, and no Player may achieve Victory. However, dynastic actions that are specifically permited to be carried out during an Interregnum may be carried out.

Remove “or after a DoV’s creation or enactment” from the description of Hiatus in the same rule.

Add a new subrule to the rule Clarifications, called Dynastic Role Terminology, with the following text:

Throughout the Dynastic Ruleset, in any tracked gamestate other than the non-Dynastic Ruleset, and in any Votable Matter or comment, the term Player is considered to be a synonym for Player and the term Dealer is considered to be a synonym for Emperor. In all other sections of the ruleset, the terms Player and Emperor must be used. The Emperor may set dynasty-specific terms for Player and Emperor in their Ascension Address; however, their selection must follow these restrictions:

* The replacement terms for the two roles must be different
* Neither term can be any words in a form in which they already appear in the Ruleset

When an Emperor changes the dynastic-specific terms in an Ascension Address, the words in bold in this rule must be changed to reflect their new values.

Any Player may amend the ruleset at any time to correct the improper use of these synonymous terms.

Throughout the non-Dynastic Ruleset change each instance of the term Dealer to Emperor. If the Dealer’s EVC to this proposal contains one other word, and that word adheres to the restrictions set out in the new rule Dynastic Role Terminology, change each instance of the term Player in the non-Dynastic ruleset to that word. Otherwise, throughout the Dynastic Ruleset change each instance of the term Player to Cardsperson.

Comments

Bucky:

19-03-2021 00:05:28 UTC

The definition of dynasty in the core rule “Dynasties” should be modified to consider Interregna.

I think Interregnum should also be defined in Dynasties, rather than buried in the Appendix.

Josh: Observer he/they

19-03-2021 00:08:40 UTC

I have put the Interregnum text into Dynasties.

Brendan: he/him

19-03-2021 00:13:05 UTC

I’m going to assume here that “Victory and Ascnesion” falls under the typo correction rule.

Kevan: he/him

19-03-2021 11:24:28 UTC

I see what “the gamestate is upheld in full” is trying to say, but I don’t think it works in practice: we uphold illegal attempts at actions, and if you’re looking at what “the gamestate” is, it can only be what legal actions have made it. (Reading this as “uphold all attempted changes to the gamestate made so far” instead would actually be very bad, as a malevolent admin could write anything they liked in the ruleset before enacting a DoV, and have it upheld.)

“The new Dealer must then” isn’t really a “must”, as they can instead pass the mantle to another player at this point.

Irrespective of that I’m still unconvinced by the idea of splitting out Player/Emperor in Core. It feels like it makes the game superficially harder to understand from the outside (“How does a Player become an Elector?”, “I can see that Kevan is the Dealer, but who is the Emperor?”), and gets in the way of active players skimming the ruleset (if I’m looking for a scam based around a particular wording, like “Players may not” or “when a Player”, I have to do twice as many text searches).

A more fundamental shift to “Players” as registered BlogNomic participants and “[Dynastic Term]s” as people active in the current dynasty might have some potential (when you idle, you stop being a “Vampire” but are still a “Player”), but we’re a long way from that.

against

Lulu: she/her

19-03-2021 12:40:26 UTC

against per Kevan

Brendan: he/him

19-03-2021 18:26:57 UTC

for Pass and patch.

Zack: he/him

19-03-2021 22:40:05 UTC

against Per Kevan

Josh: Observer he/they

20-03-2021 11:45:42 UTC

against s/k for the queue - I assume that anybody who hasn’t responded yet doesn’t want to read it so may as well move on