There’s no voting block. I did suggest one and there was 1 PM about it, but nothing has materialised. There’s no “play”. Your position is no more hopeless today than mine was yesterday, and there’s still only a handful of days left on the clock. You can still propose and there’s still no alliance on the table besides yours with card.

Play the game out.

On a personal note, if you could rein in the negative, hostile energy you’re dumping into the game at the same time then that would be appreciated.

BlogNomic’s done okay for seventeen years on this “make proposals and/or play a gamestate subgame” idea. Conventional play (and scams, which are a form of conventional play) has beaten a voting bloc more often than not. If you had a bulletproof plan but tipped your hand, or had a simpler plan which relied on everyone standing down and letting you complete a very slow sequence of actions without interrupting, bad luck, but that’s all part of the game.

I don’t want to enter the same Proposalling game, honestly. It has been bampam city for so long, and I’m tired. Like, there is no point to having Artefacts and all, or even a game, just bribe endlessly with Proposals.

It sounds like what you want is a nomic where the process of designing the game and the process of playing and winning it are separable. That’s a fair enough thing to want, and an interesting design constraint, but it’s not what BlogNomic is. I have to say, I don’t think your going to succeed in single-handedly changing the culture of the game.

You keep raising “bampam” as if it’s against the rules, or even a matter of fair play. It isn’t. It’s a legitimate strategy. I’m sorry you don’t like it but again, I don’t think your going to succeed in changing the fact that it will always be a part of the game here.

I might be wrong though. Why not try proposing against it, and see if you can get quorum?

defeatist proposal

I’ve seen people mention that they’d vote against straight bampam if it was proposed because they didn’t like it either.

Bampam isn’t good or bad, it just depends on how people like it or not. I say it as a quick way to refer to the “benefit a majority, punish a minority” concept.

And yes, I know I won’t change it, but nonetheless I wanted to express that I’m not happy with it. Although I do play according to it myself too, it’s not the most enjoyable kind of gameplay.

Maybe we should not have dynasties designed in this way in the future if we’re feeling so often bad about it in this way lol

(in this way x2, I’m Shakespeare…)

You’re also using ‘bampam’ to refer to a range of things that aren’t “benefit a majority, punish a minority” - like the Sports Cap, which objectively and straightforwardly benefits exactly one person.

In fact, what you have consistently objected to is ruleset changes that would make it harder for you to maintain your victory, regardless of the size of the “beneficiary” side.

I’m not suggesting that you don’t like being opposed while you’re winning, but I do think that you don’t like measures that fundamentally realign the game once it’s started. Thus my impression that you want “a nomic where the process of designing the game and the process of playing and winning it are separable”.

There have been dynasties that introduced completely new, orthogonal victory mechanics in the third act that sidelined the status quo frontrunner. Sometimes it’s clear who is being punished but not at all who is being benefited. Personally, these are some of the situations that I like nomics for the most.

Important to note that Sports Cap benefits anyone who isn’t the Warp. They each have a fraction of the chance.

Yes, Sports Cap likely enacted because it benefitted a quorum of players, as most voters were free to move to a Place where they might find the cap.

The Warp-weakening “Unstable Matter” proposal likely enacted because it benefited a quorum of players, by removing a 10-points-per-day advantage which was confined to only two players (who voted against it).

“Unstabler Matter” probably failed because it didn’t benefit a quorum of players; it helped the two players who were in the Warp by removing a rival path to victory, but destroying Contained Artefacts didn’t help the remaining six players, three of whom were Researchers and three of whom could possibly have become Researchers (or thieves) later in the dynasty.

I really don’t see Cuddlebeam’s perspective of how we “all” feel bad about beggar-thy-neighbour and have to exert great moral effort not to succumb to it. Proposing things which advantage some players and not others is pretty much how you play Nomic.

The question of why “oh no, Cuddlebeam is about to win, let’s propose a rule of Cuddlebeam can’t win” never actually happens at the end of a dynasty is an interesting one. I don’t think it happens from a gritted-teeth moral high ground on anybody’s part.

I think that’s the Munchkin Rule - the players who most benefit from Cuddlebeam being prohibited from winning are also susceptible, once Cuddlebeam is out of the way, to receiving the same treatment. It’s not moral but it is race-to-the-bottom, and given that most dynasties are led (in terms of voting and proposing) by the players most engaged with the dynastic rules, that seems like it ultimately results in a mutually assured destruction scenario.

Yes, I think that’s probably the core of it - both within a dynasty and in a future one, where your victim could propose the same thing back at you with relative social impunity, on the grounds that you did it to them first.

“a nomic where the process of designing the game and the process of playing and winning it are separable”

*cough cough*

For maximum obnoxiousness, you could change your pronoun field to an

(advert)