Wednesday, November 29, 2023

Proposal: Black Rod

Timed out, 4-2 with 1 DEF. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 01 Dec 2023 15:49:06 UTC

Add the following to the end of the first paragraph in the rule Claims:

Each Claim has a Disown list, which is a list of the names of Heirs. An Heir whose name is on the Disown list for a Claim may not gain, hold or otherwise have any right to that Claim.

For each Claim in the ruleset, add a line that says ‘Disown: -’

Add a new dynastic rule to the ruleset, called Tyngwall, with the following text:

A Meeting of the Tyngwall takes place each Sunday at noon, to shape the future of the Kingdom.

The Tyngwall is made up of 120 Parliamentarians. The criteria to be a Parliamentarian are as follows: a Parliamentarian must be over 40 years of age. If an Heir meets the criteria to be a Parliamentarian then they are a Parliamentarian; otherwise, they are not. All Parliamentarians in the Tynwald who are not Heirs may be assumed to be other minor Barons and landholders in the Kingdom.

Each Meeting of the Tyngwall is represented by a single post to the BlogNomic blog; such a post for the next scheduled Meeting may be made by any Heir or Old King if there is no such post. The title of such a post must take the format of the word ‘Tyngwall’ followed by the date upon which that Meeting will take place, and its body should include the Agenda for that Meeting, including any Existing Business due to be discussed.

The Agenda for each meeting of the Tyngwall is as follows: 1, Settle Existing Business; and 2, Propose New Business. The Existing Business of each Meeting of the Tyngwall is each item of New Business that was proposed to the previous meeting of the Tyngwall.

Prior to the date and time at which the Meeting takes place, any Heir who is also a Parliamentarian may respond to it indicating their support or opposition to any Existing Business, and proposing a single item of New Business.

Once, after midnight on the Wednesday and before midnight on the Saturday of that week, the Old King should secretly randomly generate the following information and post it in a comment to the Meeting due to take place that Sunday:
* For each piece of Existing Business, how many non-Heir Parliamentarians support it and how many oppose it;
* Two pieces of New Business that those non-Heir Parliamentarians will propose.

Add a new subrule to that rule, called Business:

All Business (New or Existing) must take the following format: the name of a specific Claim, and the name of one of the following decrees (specifying the value where a range of outcomes is possible):
* Endorse: Increase its Strength by any value between 1 and 10 inclusive
* Denegrate: Decrease its Strength by any value between 1 and 5 inclusive
* Disown: Add the name of a specific Heir to the Disown list for that Claim

Add another new subrule to the rule Tyngwall, called Resolving a Meeting:

At any time after a Meeting takes place, any Heir or Old King may resolved its effects as follows: for each piece of Existing Business, calculate whether more Parliamentarians support it than oppose it; if they do, enact its effect; otherwise do nothing.

When a Meeting takes place and has been thus resolved, all of its Existing Business ceases to be Business.

If Proposal: King Alan the First was enacted then, after ‘a Parliamentarian must be over 40 years of age’, add ‘; a Parliamentarian must have a name from the Feminine list’.
If Proposal: A Stain Upon Your Honour was enacted then do nothing as dishonour has never been an impedement to political involvement.
If Proposal: A prince must always seem to be very moral, even if he is not was enacted then, after ‘a Parliamentarian must be over 40 years of age’, add ‘; a Parliamentarian must have one of the Astute, Menacing, Ambitious, Charismatic, or Knavish Features’.
If Proposal: Common Ground was enacted then, after ‘a Parliamentarian must be over 40 years of age’, add ‘; a Parliamentarian must be the Palatine of an Estate’.


JonathanDark: he/him

29-11-2023 15:09:09 UTC

I think you might have to clarify what a Feminine name means. I assume you mean a name from the Feminine list on the Medieval Names wiki page, but it should probably be stated explicitly.


29-11-2023 17:12:28 UTC

Now we definitely need some way to change one’s age if being a Parlamentarian requires at least age 40

Josh: Observer he/they

29-11-2023 17:27:25 UTC

Nb that being a parliamentarian is still very weak! I’ll definitely support things that move statistics, give other routes to influencing Parliamentarians to non-Parliamentarians, or change the criteria

JonathanDark: he/him

29-11-2023 18:17:02 UTC

@Desertfrog: also NB that there are likely additional requirements, as “King Alan the First” is likely to be enacted and all players will have Masculine names, eliminating any Heir from being a Parliamentarian at the moment. I wouldn’t get too wound up about the Age requirement.


29-11-2023 19:38:31 UTC

imperial Vovix, the reading of this proposal I shunt unto thee!

Kevan: he/him

29-11-2023 20:11:12 UTC

So how does this shake out - SingularByte, JonathanDark, redtara, Desertfrog and Josh are the only Heirs above 40, and if the random Aspects enact perhaps only a lucky three of them will have what it takes to enter Parliament.

From there, each week those players can put forward one item of Business each, and (until we add a mechanic that allows non-Heir Parliamentarians to support or oppose anything) it only requires two or three of them to agree on an item for it to pass. And the strongest change they can pass is Disown - which is significant for being able to easily bring down a leading player, but it will be a long way off.

[Jonathan] The Masculine name clause of King Alan only applies if Thou Who They Is Maidenless passed - which it didn’t. Players will be free to choose to roll their name from either list.

Josh: Observer he/they

29-11-2023 20:26:49 UTC

“it only requires two or three of them to agree on an item for it to pass”

The intent is that we’re each 1 of 120 - so at enactment our votes would be essentially pointless - we could not conspire to push anything through.

Clucky: he/him

29-11-2023 20:29:04 UTC

against not sure why I’d vote to give five players who aren’t me, one of which is the author of this proposal, extra power.

Josh: Observer he/they

29-11-2023 20:31:24 UTC

@Clucky What power??? This is as powerless as I can physically make it

Kevan: he/him

29-11-2023 20:34:43 UTC

[Josh] In practice “how many non-Heir Parliamentarians support it and how many oppose it” is going to be zero and zero until we add a mechanic to say how their votes are decided, though, at least as I understand it. So the “calculate whether more Parliamentarians support it than oppose it” step is only going to be counting the Heirs.

Josh: Observer he/they

29-11-2023 20:36:13 UTC

@Kevan Is “the Old King should secretly randomly generate” that result not sufficient?

Kevan: he/him

29-11-2023 20:42:42 UTC

Ah, perhaps. So each item pushed through has a 50/50 chance of passing or failing - harder for a group of Parliamentarians to push something through but easier for a single one.

Josh: Observer he/they

29-11-2023 20:46:18 UTC

Pretty much, initially. Also worth considering that it will only happen probably 4 times in the dynasty, and the first time will be impotent as there’s no seeded Existing Matters.

Scouts honour, I made this as blank a canvas as I could.

Clucky: he/him

29-11-2023 21:02:32 UTC

Oh I read the end wrong and thought it modifying claims with needing to be over 40 rather than modifying the over 40 clause with needed the estate.

But still, getting the power to contribute new business is pretty massive as they basically have a 50/50 chance of going through.

Overall I like the idea, but gating it on age seems unfair and problematic

Josh: Observer he/they

29-11-2023 21:16:28 UTC

It seems impossible to avoid tying mechanics to some randomly generated metric, but again: the first one of these won’t have an actual impact for another 11 days, plenty of time to tinker with all of the variables.

(I’ll note that Drama of Documents would also have met that complaint, but has sadly failed…)

Josh: Observer he/they

29-11-2023 21:28:48 UTC

I am also no longer a beneficiary of this, and still stand by it.

Kevan: he/him

29-11-2023 21:51:01 UTC

If you mean your Aspect, you’ve still got a fair chance of being back in the running by pushing for an extra Aspect and Flaw.

Gating some power to specific players is all good thematic political fun, and I do like the general mechanics going on here, particularly the use of the Forenames. But it is going to be a hard sell to the Heirs who have already been ruled out.

Josh: Observer he/they

29-11-2023 22:08:52 UTC

Always is. But it’s so early in the dynasty, and being a Parliamentarian is so powerless, that I think evaluating one side of the coin as ‘better’ than the other - in a nomic! - is a mistake. I would guess that not being a Parliamentarian may end up better, if we end up with robust tools for manipulating the other non-Heirs.

SingularByte: he/him

29-11-2023 22:11:40 UTC

Technically I think I’m out of the running too. It says you need one of the features, and I got two before I thought to double check the outstanding proposals.

Still, I’m interested in seeing where this is going.  for

JonathanDark: he/him

29-11-2023 23:49:23 UTC

It would definitely be nice to change that to “a Parliamentarian must have at least one of” at some point.

JonathanDark: he/him

29-11-2023 23:49:39 UTC

That said,  for


30-11-2023 05:50:12 UTC


Kevan: he/him

30-11-2023 09:10:35 UTC

So as things stand this morning Desertfrog, JonathanDark, Redtara and SingularByte will become Parliamentarians, and Josh has better-than-chance odds of joining them if he reveals a second Aspect later today.

Clucky, Forest, Lendunistus, Snisbo, Zack and I cannot become Parliamentarians without a rule change. The Parliamentarian faction may oppose any such rule change, and would be able to use the promise or threat of their Endorse/Denigrate/Disown powers to persuade some non-Parliamentarians to support the status quo.

against as I’m not swayed by Josh’s observations that maybe this power he proposed to give himself and knowingly exclude half the Heirs from may actually be a bad thing. Any additional ability is valuable in Nomic, particularly when it’s so strongly gated that some players won’t be able to use it at all without a rule change.

I like the idea and no obvious instant-win scams are standing out (there’s some give in the fact that Tyngwall posts only “should” include the Agenda for that Meeting, so can be written with any content, but I can’t see that it would allow invented Business to be created), but I have no assurances that the Parliament’s power would be checked once they were installed.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-11-2023 09:39:31 UTC

@Kevan It’s very early for nomic paranoia, isn’t it? But: I’m not planning on getting a second Feature today, so if I haven’t by the time my 24 hour clock ticks over, will you recoonsider your vote?

Also, no, for the record, as written literally only redtara will be a Parliamentarian (as SB notes above, there’s a bug in the rule; it says a Parliamentarian ‘must have one’ of the Features, so anyone with 2 is out of luck.)

Kevan: he/him

30-11-2023 10:25:49 UTC

Never too early to check a proposal for game-ending loopholes, or to consider how a near-quorum power imbalance might play out.

I think “must have one of” could be read either way and might go to a CfJ if it enacted, so any vote I make here would have to factor both outcomes.

Always happy to reconsider a vote based on new information and commitments to future behaviour, but “do you want some opponents to have a power that you don’t have” is still a hard sell.