Sunday, July 02, 2017

Proposal: [Core] [Dynastic] A sect is a cult, but is a cult a sect?

Times out 5-2. Enacted by pokes.

Adminned at 05 Jul 2017 22:25:41 UTC

Amend rule 1.3 “Dynasties” by
- replacing:

BlogNomic is divided into a number of Dynasties. Each Dynasty may be headed by a single Explorer, known as the Expedition Leader. If there is no Expedition Leader, the Dynasty is a Metadynasty.

with:

BlogNomic is divided into a number of Dynasties. Each Dynasty may be headed by one or more Explorers, known as the Expedition Leaders. If there is no Expedition Leader, the Dynasty is a Metadynasty.

Amend rule 1.7 “Victory and Ascension”, by replacing:

If an Explorer (other than the Expedition Leader) believes that they have achieved victory in the current Dynasty, they may make a post to the Blognomic weblog in the Declaration of Victory category, detailing this.

with:

If an Explorer (hereafter referred to as the Victor) believes that they have achieved victory in the current Dynasty, either individually, or collectively with other Explorers (hereafter referred to as the co-Victors), then that Explorer may make a post to the Blognomic weblog in the Declaration of Victory category, detailing this, and specifying all the co-Victors, if applicable.

- and replacing:

When a DoV is enacted, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the Explorer who made the DoV as its Expedition Leader. That Explorer may pass this role to another Explorer at this point by making a post to that effect, if they wish.

with:

When a DoV is enacted, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins, with the Victor, and the co-Victors if there are any, as its Expedition Leaders. At this point, the Victor may pass this role to another Explorer by making a post to that effect, if they wish, provided they have achieved victory individually; and any of the Victor and co-Victors may step down from the role, by making a post to that effect, provided they have achieved victory collectively. If all Victor and co-Victors step down in this way, the new Dynasty is a Metadynasty.

- and replacing:

The Hiatus continues until the new Expedition Leader makes an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category - this should specify the Expedition Leader’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally specify that the terms Explorer and Expedition Leader will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset, and/or a number of dynastic rules to keep. Upon posting such an Ascension Address, the Ruleset is updated to reflect any changed terms, and any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed.

with:

The Hiatus continues until either of the following happens:
- one of the new Expedition Leaders makes an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category - this should specify a chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and may optionally specify that the terms Explorer and Expedition Leader will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire ruleset, and/or a number of dynastic rules to keep. Upon posting such an Ascension Address, the Ruleset is updated to reflect any changed terms, and any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed.
- all the Victor and co-Victors have stepped down and there is no longer an Expedition Leader - when this happens, all dynastic rules are repealed.

 

Transpose rules 2.11 “Victory” and 2.12 “Artefacts”, so that “Victory” is numbered 2.12 and “Artefacts” 2.11.

Remove the text:

If a Cultist has a number of Artefacts equal to a quorum of Cultists, and is at the Mountain Camp, and is not at Gunpoint, then that Cultist has achieved victory.

If three Artefacts have been destroyed, then the Explorer to have destroyed the most Artefacts (breaking ties in favour of the Explorer to have destroyed an Artefact most recently) has achieved victory.

from rule “Artefacts”, and append it to rule “Victory”.

Append to rule “Victory” the text:

At any time, a Cultist may Unveil by posting a Story Post containing the word “Unveiling” in its title. In that post, they must declare one of the following:
- that they are the only Cultist;
- that there are exactly two Cultists, in which case the post must also specify the name of the other Cultist;
- that there are at least three Cultists, in which case the post must also specify the names of at least two other Cultists.
A Cultist may never achieve Victory if they haven’t Unveiled, or if their latest Unveiling post contains declarations which are not accurate. When a Cultist achieves Victory, they achieve Victory collectively with all the other Cultists whom they named in their latest Unveiling post, if there are any.

Addressing the two issues card cited:
- that a DoV can only make the author an Expedition Leader achieve victory
- who determines the theme

Plus obliges a victor Cultist to actually name his co-Victors (and invalidates the Victory if they guess wrong).

Comments

Cuddlebeam:

07-02-2017 18:56:36 UTC

“or if their latest Unveiling post contains declarations which are not accurate.”

How would we know this though? I think it might be good to have Sphinx stamp it or something.

Cpt_Koen:

07-02-2017 23:07:38 UTC

Good point. Feel free to propose that. If this passes, I also intended to propose to make Unveiling a private message to the Expedition Leader, rather than a public blog post. But I want that in a separate proposal.

In the meantime, Sphinx should vote against a DoV if he knows it’s not legal; and if Sphinx votes against a DoV, we’ll know it’s not legal.

Cuddlebeam:

07-02-2017 23:09:22 UTC

for

card:

07-03-2017 04:25:52 UTC

for

Sphinx:

07-03-2017 08:42:08 UTC

for

Kevan:

07-03-2017 08:42:55 UTC

for

pokes:

07-03-2017 09:56:09 UTC

against

Axemabaro:

07-03-2017 13:46:25 UTC

imperial

Kevan:

07-03-2017 14:17:21 UTC

against Cautious CoV, beginning to have second thoughts about enshrining multiple-victor victories as having equal footing as single-victor ones. And taking up so much core ruleset (which new players have to be able to digest) to explain something which we’re perhaps only going to use once or twice.

Cuddlebeam:

07-03-2017 14:30:59 UTC

It’s subjective imo. Each person gives a win their own amount of worth, regardless of Ruleset wording, so I’m not too concerned.

The Core ruleset part is a fair point though, but when otherwise would it be a good moment to try this? There’s always going to be new people coming and going.

Kevan:

07-03-2017 14:55:53 UTC

We can still try it next dynasty, but just in a dynastic-rule “X and Y are sub-Emperors, they also have a veto and can’t win” proposal (or whatever variant of that) when it starts.

Sphinx:

07-04-2017 06:51:48 UTC

What about a core rule that self-deletes itself after the start of the next dynasty or moves into the Dynastic body?