Er, I think this would end the nomic if triggered, as the word ‘game’ appears in the core rules a couple of times and seems to refer to the game of Blognomic there.

Rule 2.7 has the same problem.  Suggest blanket fix via new appendix entry.

  Umm.. I’m not quite sure but if this rule passes will anybody be able to say “I put the ansible back online” or will we need another rule telling us how we can get the ansible back online?

wording issues aside, themed 100% correct.

@Patrick, no, “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset.”

per Purplebeard.

1) I think having only one victory condition is the best idea
and
2) Putting the ansible back up really has to be defined. Thanks for pointing that out Patrick!

@Doctor29: There isn’t a victory condition yet though, just the statement:
“At the end of the game, first, the Player with the most Councilmen gains one tenth of the total amount of Power owned by all other players combined.
Then, the Player with the most Power wins.”

It tells us what happens at the end of the game, but not what triggers the end of the game.

CoV

@southpointingchariot: Yes, and “The end of the game will occur when the Ansible is back on-line.” will be part of the ruleset and specifies of a way to end the game.

@koen, but my point was, “the ansible being put back on line” can not be achieved just by someone announcing it.

Well, we don’t know yet how the ansible can be back on-line, which is kind of the point of this proposal, right?
But if a future rule says “Whenever the Net announces that the Ansible is back on-line, it is.”, then it could be achieve just by you announcing it.

“Ansible” isn’t defined as gamestate (its alteration is not regulated) or as a keyword, so we’d just use the standard English meaning of it, which could go badly.

I don’t think we’ll ever have any problems with a standard hypothetical machine capable of instantaneous or superluminal communication.
So until the ruleset mentions how to put the Ansible back online, this rule will have no effect, and when it does, its alteration will be regulated, so no problems either.

@koen

It still seems like a bad idea to speak of ending the game, no matter how unlikely it is that it actually happens. I, for one, don’t want to take the risk.

[Koen] Well, there’s also an “online” website called Ansible, which seems to be the only non-fictional usage of the noun. I’d rather not risk a rules lawyer being able to prove that BlogNomic has now “ended”, just for the sake of whatever flavour reference is being made here.

per Kevan.

Though I like the concept, the idea of accidentally breaking everything is bad. I’ve been thinking about what the ending mechanic should be - any thoughts? I’d prefer something beyond the “someone has a lot of stuff” or “x amount of time” systems.

I guess this is salvageable if we define Ansible and change “game” for whatever we choose to change it for?

I’m against defining the Ansible so soon.
I think your proposal is fine, the only problem is the “game” thing.