Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Proposal: Government-Mandated Protocols

Popular, 6-0. Josh

Adminned at 18 Feb 2020 14:27:31 UTC

Replace the contents of the Dynastic Ruleset with the text of the section “Dynastic Rules” in the page https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Sandbox&oldid=9015#Dynastic_Rules.

The main changes here are in the “Divergence” rule, now renamed “Multiverse Mechanics” and restructured: I’ve added “Portals” and “Cataclysm” to the Para Ruleset; I’ve added the “Self” term for in-universe versions of Scientists, and introduced some other terms (like “Universe Rulesets”, Universe of origin” and “associated Universe”) that might be useful in proposals; I’ve changed wording that no longer makes much sense; I’ve clarified that each Scientist has one vote per proposal; I’ve added gamestate to things you need a tag to amend in a Universe; and I’ve added a ban on combining Universe proposals with Para or Core proposals, mostly so that the extra level of bureaucracy doesn’t get too confusing (and crossing Scientists cannot bypass voting restrictions this way).

As to the other changes:

– I renamed “Portal” to the clearer “First Connection”.
– I moved the temporary, portal-related “Similarity” high up and improved its structure.
– I removed from “Cataclysm” the restatement of extreme Polarities; since this is set elsewhere, and the Para set has precedence, it would only complicate things to keep the numbers in both places.
– I rearranged some of the other rules (though it’s still a somewhat loose set): “Portals” is close to its Para brethren, “Budget” and “Research Material” have been unified under “University Resources”, “Star Signs” is the second rule in the Universe Rulesets after that, and “Mindflaying” is now a subrule of “Polarity”.
– Some tweaks in “Polarity” (clarifying that each Scientists throws their own dice), “Discrepant Actions”, “Portal Procedure” (including another blockquote and removal of the now-redundant “flavour text” note there) and “Star Signs” (to ensure that the Scientist is interpreted as the player and not a Self, and thus the Star Sign is the same for both Selves).

I’m sure there’s enough here to raise objections on something or other from most quarters, but in the interest of convenience, these could be dealt with in supplementary proposals. (Same thing for previous proposals that look set to pass: I’ve incorporated their effects, but if one of these ends up being failed for whatever reason, this can be corrected afterwards.)

I still haven’t got to satisfactorily resolve the matter of rules dealing with both Universes; the ruleset seems to work as it is, but not necessarily as well as it should. On the other hand, if we put too many rules in the Paradynastic Ruleset, there might be so little left in the Universe Rulesets that would defeat the point of diverging Universes, so… I don’t know.

Comments

Josh: LOUIS XIV HE/HIM

02-18-2020 10:14:40 UTC

for

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

02-18-2020 10:19:19 UTC

A change not mentioned in the summary: a proposal is not automatically failed if it’s Unstable, but someone has to point it out in the comments. I thought it would make the job of enacting Admins easier by spreading responsibility for checking the legality of proposals.

Kevan: HE/HIM

02-18-2020 11:14:17 UTC

imperial

Darknight: HE/HIM

02-18-2020 11:49:08 UTC

for

Tantusar: HE/THEY

02-18-2020 12:43:41 UTC

Never done a cross-page diff before, but here it is in all its probably not that useful glory: https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?diff=9015&oldid=9018

Tantusar: HE/THEY

02-18-2020 12:43:58 UTC

Anyway,  imperial .

Josh: LOUIS XIV HE/HIM

02-18-2020 13:08:40 UTC

Cov against

Kevan: HE/HIM

02-18-2020 13:22:11 UTC

What’s the concern, Josh?

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

02-18-2020 14:04:37 UTC

I resorted to this admittedly drastic measure because on the one hand there were concerns about various aspects of the main mechanics, not all of which were patched before the ruleset was due to be split (and discussion wasn’t exactly lively these days), and on the other hand I didn’t want the dynasty to get stuck in a quagmire of CfJs at the moment when it ought to be taking off.

I really hoped I wouldn’t have to use my veto (or dump a permanent link on you like this), but I thought it best to act fast in the interests of getting the action started on a better footing, considering that voting itself is one of the untested aspects of the new mechanics, and any problems there might give us a lot of grief, making it harder to improve anything else. Perhaps it would all work out eventually, but sometimes it doesn’t, and that can be fatal to a dynasty. (Plus, I aimed to make the ruleset a little more accessible, to ease further amendments.)

Have I made a bad job here? I know there will be more things to fix, but is anything here game-breaking, or in a worse shape than before?

[Tantusar] I didn’t know you could compare revisions in different pages; apparently the software only cares about the revision ID. (I relied on https://www.diffchecker.com/ while working on the Sandbox.)

Kevan: HE/HIM

02-18-2020 14:08:37 UTC

Drastic measures are fine. If anything I’d have preferred if this went further and just changed to the Alpha/Prime rulesets so that we’d know what the game would look like, rather than having to imagine diffs of diffs to squint at how “Portal Procedures” will actually update various rules when it triggers.

The Duke of Waltham: HE/HIM

02-18-2020 14:16:08 UTC

I’ll attempt a dry run in the Sandbox; perhaps something unexpected will pop up.

Jumble:

02-18-2020 14:25:39 UTC

imperial

Josh: LOUIS XIV HE/HIM

02-18-2020 14:27:13 UTC

Cov for