I’ll vote for this in favour of almost any proposal that gives me less than 65% equity

bankers when they hear the economy is about to collapse

Hm, I’ve never played a metadynasty yet. I’m tempted to vote in favor just for the novelty.

I am not against a metadynasty, but I do not at all enjoy the unilateral queue-wipe that took place here.

I hate metadynasties and I’m extremely against the heavy-handedness by which this is being forced by the emperor against the mechanics agreed by the players.

If the same group of players who voted to take the dynasty to a chop also vote to take the dynasty to a meta on that grounds that this chop is unresolvable, that’s fair enough, but I’m unimpressed at the weight apparently being given to idle players on this decision.

CoV Kevan is unwilling to sensibly compromise so there’s sadly nowhere else to go.

CoV to temporarily keep this a bit further from reaching quorum

COV before someone loses an eye

@Kevan By “the weight given to idle players” do you you mean “non-idle players utilising the central mechanic of a nomic”? Is there a requisite level of engagement you have to meet to keep your vote in the endgame? I get the thrust of the idea that there ought to be some sort of progression to a dynasty but this active/passive citizenship rhetoric is getting a bit tiresome.

@redtara Not to speak for Kevan, but we have had an occasional issue in the game where players who have not been active in the dynasty decide that it’s “gone on too long” or needs fixing from afar, swoop in, and generally wreck the place.

The ur-example of this is the Agoran invasion, but a more trenchant reference point is the end of The Thirteenth Dynasty of Josh, a demi-inverse of the current situation in which - after two months of play - Bucky wanted to see the dynasty out while a hostile Slack channel tried to find ways to bring matters to a close prematurely.

Not to say that there’s isn’t more to discuss, here, but when Kevan evokes idle vs not-idle it’s not just a peasants-vs-lords thing; it responds to a long-running debate about the extent to which bystanders can or should attempt to interfere with a game that is in progress.

I’m just referring to Bucky and Benbot, here.

To thwart the swarm of Unidling players swooping in to destabilize the current dynasty, maybe we should incorporate a temporary limit on Unidling during the Endgame Lockdown concept. However, I’m not sure how to do that short of making Endgame Lockdown part of the Core Rules. I’m also not sure to what extent such a move to limit Unidling would be against the culture of BlogNomic, though there seems to be some precedent for it.

Sadly putting it into the Appendix failed, a few months back.

True, but now we have some additional context. Or maybe the same context, just more of it.

Once the current situation resolves one way or another, I might just try to re-propose.

Also, that Proposal had flaws that can be addressed.

Yes, let’s repeat this situation every dynasty.

There’s another precedent in the fact that, since the end of last year, players can’t be unidled while a DoV is open for discussion and voting.

CoV Let’s get moving!