BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I’d suggest changing PRO to FOR; PRO doesn’t mean anything in the ruleset.

What would the incentive be for creating such a proposal?

Uuuh thank you!

PS: In the back, I hope this proposal will NOT pass… X-D

@Publius: we can talk about it…. X-D

Anyway, think about this: this could be the first case in which the corruption is manifestly legal, and well defined by Law.

Generally not a fan of rewarding players for FOR votes. Especially the way this one is done, where people can still be rewarded for voting FOR bad proposals which at worst gives an advantage to active people and enacting admins who can switch their votes right before it passes and at worst will result in bad proposals passing.

@Clucky “at worst will result in bad proposals passing” Yes, this is why is called Corruption :D

“can switch their votes right before it passes” Of course. You can’t trust a corrupted man :P

bad proposals passing is not a good thing

@Clucky: of course not! But hey, this is how it works in the real world. And I suppose it will be increase the fun of the game a lot X-D

The timing is unclear here: when do the points change hands, and who has to update that?

If I vote 10 times on the same proposal, do I keep getting points? (The Corruptor maybe stops being the Corruptor when they run out of points, but I think I can still keep claiming points from it, as the “gains X points” aren’t specifically originating from anywhere.)

[Clucky] Bad proposals potentially passing can be a fun bit of gameplay: if it made any sense to post a Corrupt proposal of “Kevan wins”, it’s a game of chicken to claim the FOR points without being the last person to tip the proposal over into passing. That kind of nonsense seems okay in a metadynasty.

I foresee this mostly being used as a mechanism for transferring points to pool them to bring a cabal to victory.

This kind of thing would typically refer to EVCs instead of Votes, as I could vote FOR, then change my vote to AGAINST, and then still get my points.

per Clucky anyway

@pokes: “I foresee this mostly being used as a mechanism for transferring points to pool them to bring a cabal to victory.” And this is quite desiderable in a corrupted system X-D

@Kevan:
“when do the points change hands”
point changes are applied immediately.

“who has to update that”
No other rules states who change the points.

“If I vote 10 times on the same proposal, do I keep getting points?”
I don’t know if this is legal. If yes, well, yep, there’s a bug. But hey, it’s a corruption law. He deserves to be manipulated X-D

“The Corruptor maybe stops being the Corruptor when they run out of points”
Nope. The corruptor can go negative and contract debts. There’s another cap, read the Bankrupt rule :)

[Marco] Who updates automatic effects is something that BlogNomic can often be a bit careless about, but I think the other rules are clear enough right now: “an Amnesiac may Spin The Wheel [and] apply the Payout of the Segment with Index corresponding to the die roll, to every Amnesiac with that Segment in their Wager” tells us that the player who rolled the Wheel also updates the Points, right away.

“the Corruptor, will subtract X points for every FOR vote to that proposal. Every Amnesiac that votes FOR to that proposal gains X points.” is less clear. I guess the second part means that when I cast a FOR vote I can immediately give myself X points. I can’t reduce the Corruptor’s points, though, because the rule says that they “will” do it.

And ah, okay, bankcrupting the Corruptor destroys the proposal and reverses all the points gained and lost, I missed that. So a vote-10-times scam fails once it’s bankcrupted the Corruptor (or someone else chooses to bankcrupt them), but only when the Corruptor has actually subtracted those points.

You know what? I don’t think this is a good mechanism for cabals. I think this would be hilarious to watch.

bad proposals do not make the game more fun

if a proposal made the game more fun, people would vote for it

@derrick: ahahahahh that’s exactly why I proposed it. And I had fun only for proposing this rule X-D