Sunday, May 10, 2009

Proposal: Happy Returns

Self-killed, failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 11 May 2009 04:24:43 UTC

Create a new subrule, titled “Sharing the Wealth” with the following text:

Every time a Scripter Bribes the Producer, the Royalties of each Scripter increases by 1.

So, whenever a single Scripter Bribes Dev, all Scripters gain (including Devenger, again!). Because when the Producer’s happy, everyone’s happy.



05-10-2009 02:59:17 UTC

imperial hmm… I don’t know.


05-10-2009 04:29:26 UTC



05-10-2009 10:38:34 UTC

against Although my back-of-envelope calculations don’t actually show any infinite-Royalty loops here, I don’t like the look of this, so close to the endgame.


05-10-2009 11:07:46 UTC



05-10-2009 12:51:41 UTC

against don’t see this having any significant effect on who wins, awkward to go down the GNDT adding 1 to each player’s Royalties, and difficult to spot exploits are a possibility.


05-10-2009 15:58:22 UTC

You guys think everything is some kind of scam. I’m making Proposals because I’m bored with sitting around waiting. They do not have any loopholes: look at the Proposal! It is incredibly simple.

I’m trying to do something to make the game more interesting. Please consider that I might just be making Proposals because I want the game to be as enjoyable as possible.


05-10-2009 16:14:15 UTC

It’s good to have a proposition to chew over, but this is a delicate stage of the endgame, and “incredibly simple” by no means translates to “unscammable”. (There might not have been any lately, but there’s a long tradition of nomic scams in the vein of “I do X, and gain 1 point, then spend that point to do Y, and gain one point, and repeat that a million times, and boom”.)


05-10-2009 16:26:53 UTC

So please take a moment to verify that that cannot happen with this Proposal. I appreciate your efforts.


05-10-2009 16:33:37 UTC

It takes more than “a moment” to verify that a rule like this doesn’t allow for any infinite loops, when considered in combination with every existing rule. And it’s always tricky to prove a negative.

If it looked like a fun or beneficial rule then I’d make more effort to check that it couldn’t be abused, but as Devenger says, this is pretty minor, and not a lot of fun to actually update in the GNDT.

But don’t take this as “you are obviously lying, there must be a scam hidden in here” - it just looks and quacks so much like a component of an infinite-royalties mechanism that somebody else might find a way to exploit it, that you didn’t notice or intend.


05-10-2009 16:42:49 UTC

There isn’t, I checked. But I suppose it might take [a minute] to update in the GNDT.


05-10-2009 19:04:08 UTC

How does this proposal make the endgame any more interesting? There’ll be no more or less reason to bribe the Producer, except one way or the other in extremely obscure situations.

Anyway, the bribery phase will start very soon, the moment I’m confident with the apparently inconsistent times across BlogNomic meaning I can start it. This is a little late.


05-10-2009 19:10:28 UTC

*shrug* Same way any new rule makes the game more interesting. There are more variables to consider before doing something.

I actually think Prop-aganda is a bit more fun. And it will still be applicable, up to the last second of play.


05-10-2009 19:55:15 UTC

against I don’t think it’s a scam; but it would be a pain to update the GNDT to do this, for such a small effect. (The GNDT doesn’t easily allow mass updates of stats.)


05-10-2009 20:35:41 UTC

against s/k for convenience