Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Proposal: Infamous Victory

Times out 9 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 01 Jun 2012 05:35:09 UTC

Rename the rule “Victory” to “Immanentizing the Eschatons”, and reword it to:-

Each Time Monk has a field in the GNDT entitled Eschatons, defaulting to zero. Each Dynasty may or may not be Immanentized, and defaults to not being Immanentized.

If a Time Monk would be eligible to achieve Victory in the Dynasty that they currently occupy, were they Enlightened, and if that Dynasty has not yet been Immanentized, then they may Immanentize that Dynasty by making a blog post with the Title “Immanentizing Dynasty X”, where X is the Dynasty they occupy, and placing an asterisk beside that Dynasty in the Dynastic History list on the front page of the Wiki. Upon doing so, the Monk who Immanentized the Dynasty gains 1 Eschaton.

Time Monks may be either Enlightened or Unenlightened, defaulting to Unenlightened. A Time Monk may not declare Victory if he or she is Unenlightened.

To the rule “Dynastic Travel”, add:-

If a Dynasty is Immanentized, it may not be made the Occupied Dynasty of any Time Monk, and any Time Monk for whom it is the current Occupied Dynasty may have their Dynasty set to 100.

Quarantining earlier-Dynasty Victories by turning them into an “if you would have achieved victory, you don’t actually achieve victory but gain a number instead” mechanic, and putting an unlockable block on victory declaration, at least for now.


Josh: he/they

30-05-2012 12:48:25 UTC

How do we deal with dubious Immanentizations?

for but it would be nice to add a voting mechanic back at some later stage.


30-05-2012 14:13:41 UTC

I find all that vocabulary confusing, unnecessary, and not so much in-theme (the way I see it, the dynasty’s about Blognomic, not mysticism). The fact that “enlightened” is only ‘defined’ after it has been used doesn’t help.

I’m also concerned that Eschatons, and every other variable that is not defined in “Gamestate Mapping”, actually have to be mapped to the One-Ten columns of the GNDT, and only make sense when the Dynasty of a Time Monk is 100.


30-05-2012 14:24:25 UTC

Also, at which point did ===Dynastic Travel===, ===Gamestate Mapping=== and ===Victory=== become actual subrules to the hard rules?

I understand that the === === is a code in the wiki, but I’m not comfortable with voting for something that will transform because the wiki has been implemented so, without any rule in the ruleset stating the transformation should happen.


30-05-2012 15:00:07 UTC


Josh’s proposal already closes the door on scams, but this would remove Josh’s proposal.

Clucky: he/him

30-05-2012 15:25:59 UTC

But achieving victory is often up for date…  against

Kevan: City he/him

30-05-2012 15:45:48 UTC

Currently DoV problems are (at least as I see it):-

<ul><li>As soon as anyone makes a successful Dynasty-X DoV, Rule 1.7 is triggered and “a new Dynasty begins with the Time Monk who made the DoV as its Time Buddha”.
<li>There is no way to distinguish a Dynasty-X DoV from a Dynasty-100 DoV.</ul>

Neither of these have pending fixes, and I fear we’re just asking for trouble by having victory declaration as a common mechanic. It’s trivial to replace “declare victory” with “announce that you have met the requirements for victory”.

As for dubious Immanentizations - well, they aren’t that different to any other illegal gamestate changes, we could just CfJ a debatable claim. I imagine most of them are going to be pretty quick and simple, but we can have a vote on each one if we want to change this back.

Darknight: he/him

30-05-2012 17:07:12 UTC


Josh: he/they

30-05-2012 17:07:36 UTC

@Yonah—this supercedes mine in most respects.


30-05-2012 17:11:35 UTC



30-05-2012 17:19:06 UTC



30-05-2012 17:27:58 UTC



30-05-2012 18:34:42 UTC

CoV for then, although I’d prefer a slightly more readable fix.


30-05-2012 22:23:48 UTC

I agree with Yonah, and with the necessity to vote on victories, especially since they are more likely to be reached via dynastic travel scams than regular play.


31-05-2012 07:51:34 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

31-05-2012 09:15:44 UTC

I think we can probably live without voting on the mini-DoVs, the same way we live without voting on other gamestate changes, however elaborately scammed. The big reason we pause and check and vote for a full DoV is that it could get messy if the winner just continued playing as if their win was legal.


31-05-2012 14:43:17 UTC



01-06-2012 08:41:09 UTC