I realized that I didn’t specify that Attack Commit and Defense Commit were reset to their default values when a Challenge first becomes Open. If that’s the only objection people have to this Proposal, I’m happy to “arrow” it and re-propose, or we can just pass-and-patch, since there would be time to patch it before there was a second Challenge, even if someone started the first one right away.

So, there’s an obvious exploit here: if you hedge your bets by spending at least 1 equity on each side, you share in the profits of whichever side wins.

With regard to resetting the attack and defence commits, I’d probably say they should be set with respect to a given challenge, rather than just being global.

Ok, got it:

* Don’t allow both Attacks and Defends from the same Nomicer. Or, allow a Nomicer to “switch sides” by resetting their Attack Commit if they Defend and vice-versa, so that they can’t have both. In the latter case, only count an Attack or Defend if the respective Commit is non-zero

* Explicitly track the Commits per Challenge

Anything else? I’ll “arrow” this if it’s clear that there aren’t any objections to the overall idea. I don’t want to waste time making adjustments if this winds up being crossed-out against by a lot of people.

The “privately informing the Imperator” stuff should be a Virtual Action, if that Building Block is considered fit for purpose, to save us from the usual rigmarole of whether requests like “one higher than the current highest submission”, “|4x^2-τ| mod 13” and “no wait ignore that I changed my mind” do anything.

Also, I was considering an “anti-grief” clause so that a Nomicer who feels like they might be on the losing end doesn’t keep advancing the timeout just to prevent the ending of a Challenge.

Something reasonable like 3 or 5 total Attacks and Defends per Nomicer per Challenge.

I agree that a clause preventing an indefinite extension of the timeout should be added. I have no objections to the overall idea of this proposal.

I’m not sure how I feel about the proposal on the merits, being torn between an arrow and a cross. I doubt the Emperor is going to vote unconditionally FOR this version, so this is intended as an arrow-DEF.

Any particular concerns, or you don’t like the idea of secret bids to battle for extra Equity?

Lukewarm on whether a bidding and bluffing “attack” subgame really fits with the Equity concept of the dynasty.

CoV to DEF; Emperor’s call on how well this fits the dynastic theme.

@JonathanDark:

I misinterpreted the proposal. I thought at the time of my previous comment that whether a player is attacking or defending is entirely private, which would lead to a symmetrical and mostly luck-based situation.

With the actual version, you have to announce whether you’re attacking or defending (although not to what extent) – that significantly changes things and gives a substantial last-mover advantage (because whoever goes last has the most information). I feel like that is probably a fundamentally unfixable problem (given that the version with private attacking vs. defending is also not really desirable gameplay).

CoV as I no longer think that a good way to do this exists.

If this does end up getting arrow-withdrawn or reproposed, one other required fix: as written you can attack or defend multiple times, but there’s only one Commit variable for each, which doesn’t seem to take the multiple attacks/defences into account.

I tend to be strongly of the view that the Emperor sets the theme but the players define it collectively. Thematically this doesn’t work for me personally - I think this is a jockeying-for-position, sudden-powergrab dynasty than a head to head conflict dynasty - but my vote is more motivated by a sense that this is a bit mechanically messy in a way that doesn’t quite pay for itself, and worry that it will devolve into a screw-the-leader endgame that becomes more trudge than fun.

Based on several people stating that this doesn’t fit thematically, I’m going to fully withdraw this. I appreciate the discussion.