I like the basic mechanic. My main concern is that some Demands are likely to be much easier than others, and so there will be quite a lot of randomness in terms of Trust gains.

I’m also a little concerned about a possible bug, which is that nothing states that strings in Delegations that resemble Vampire Lord names should be interpreted as Vampire Lord names. So either we just do a string match on the names, leading to a huge scam if someone named “Pending” registers; or we use the usual default of “it isn’t a name unless someone says it’s a name” and the whole thing doesn’t work at all. Or to put it another way, the fourth bullet point seems to depend on Delegations being sets of Vampire Lords, but that isn’t defined as a legal value for a Delegation to have.

(It’s too late to edit now, or I would have suggested “a Delegation, which is either ‘Pending’ (the default), or a set of Vampire Lords and idle Vampire Lords”.)

makes sense, i can patch that wording in w/ a follow-up proposal :o

I’m going to interpret this as being a proposal that’s primarily about the vampire economy and will thus abstain.

But I remain utterly convinced that a variable named “Trust” will never make any narrative sense.

why not? is dracula’s trust in us non-quantifiable?

@Kevan: I don’t think it’s the trust in us from each other. I think it’s the trust in us from some mysterious NPC dark forces, who can be relied on to act as the ruleset suggests they should rather than having their own opinions about players.

per ais - the hard part here is generating interesting demands in a fair way, and without having that, I’m worried it’s a lot of ruletext for what might amount to RNG noise.

i figured that ppl would be inclined to create & delegate roughly-balanced objectives, since not every pending demand has to actually be assigned & if u choose ones that’re too easy or too difficult that’s liable to cause u problems, but when the votes fall if the consensus is that that’s not enough vetting, i can draft up a new approach :0

CoV to AGAINST as the free text Conditions are bothering me. I don’t think there’s a way for them to actually allow actions that are otherwise illegal - it is a bit nerve-jangling that I can write a Condition of “condition is for Kevan to have achieved victory and by the way he can do this by clicking his fingers, everyone” and another rule can wait dutifully for when “the event or circumstance comes to pass or the course of action is performed”, but I think it’s fine.

But we could have a Condition of “somebody in the Delegation has a non-Loyal Allegiance”, and tick the box as complete, and then look eagerly to Richardo von Nestor to say whether or not that action was legal.

I’d rather these got pulled from a list that we voted into place, which should be fine if they’re being assigned at random.

I’d rather these got pulled from a list that we voted into place, which should be fine if they’re being assigned at random.
I like this part of Kevans comment.

s/k bc i think everybody’s got good points here & i don’t wanna clog up the queue :o