Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Proposal: It’s Just a Jump to the Left…

Timed out 1 vote to 1 with 1 unresolved DEF. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 17 Nov 2016 23:51:24 UTC

Create a new rule “Time Warps” as follows:

Any player may, as a daily action, “create a Time Warp,” by making a Story Post that specifies:
1. The name(s) of at least one other active player designated as Collaborator(s). The post’s author and the designated player(s) are the Collaborators of that Warp.
2. The name of one of the collaborators designated as the Warper.
3. A restored Hour that was focused by one of the Collaborators designated as the Target. The Fourth Dynasty of Josh may not be Targeted.

If each of the named players comment on the post with a FOR vote, then the Time Warp becomes Open.

When the quartzes of any Open Warp’s collaborators total at least 24, that Warp Activates and all Time Warps become permanently Closed. The Emperor must then pass the role of Emperor to the Active Warp’s Warper, and the Dynastic Rules are set to those of the Active Warp’s Target’s dynasty after that dynasty’s first proposal was enacted.

This is my attempt to create a goal that fit with the ideals of the dynasty: collaboration against the Emperor, nostalgia, use of the archives, bringing people in, and embracing unintuive situations and radical change.

I’ve tried to structure things so that new players that are recruited via vouching are not discouraged to join in, because as long as you have at least 1 quartz, you’re valuable to a collaboration. At the same time, there’s no benefit to hesitating to get involved, so it avoids a waiting game.


Brendan: he/him

16-11-2016 00:10:37 UTC

Note: I like this, but should we put a limit on how far back a Time Warp can go? I don’t know how many rulesets are actually compatible with the current Core Rules, and if the game becomes unplayable, I’d rather it become so on purpose.


16-11-2016 01:48:54 UTC

That is a great question, but I’d have to defer to someone with a better understanding of the history to answer it.


16-11-2016 01:49:49 UTC

It’s worth noting that only the first proposal of a dynasty is important.


16-11-2016 01:56:11 UTC

If it is deemed necessary, I think the best option would be to allow the Emperor to veto warps.

Kevan: Oracle he/him

16-11-2016 13:23:16 UTC

It might be nice to revisit an old dynasty that was cut short (the Fourth Dynasty of Josh perhaps more than any), but an Imperial handover without formally ending the current dynasty seems a bit oblique.



16-11-2016 13:44:32 UTC

@Kevan: “Oblique” seems kind of in keeping with this dynasty’s theme. The ruleset specifically allows for this type of behavior, but I do understand your perspective.


17-11-2016 14:07:22 UTC

I really like this but there are some things that could be improved:

1. A mechanism to overrule or challenge a Warp. I would suggest having a minimum grace period between a Warp being created and Opened. Some mechanism to invalidate a Warp during this period should exist: either an imperial veto, a straight vote, or perhaps a vote weighted by Quartzes.

2. Currently nothing is being done to clean up the GNDT or wiki state. Depending on that and the dynasty you could immediately get into conflicts.

3. This changes the dynastic rules, but the core rules will still refer to “Player” and “Emperor” while the new dynastic terms could very well be something else. Lord knows what would happen in this case???


17-11-2016 14:36:16 UTC

@gazebo_dude: Fair points.

1. I think an Imperial veto is probably the way to do it. I think a 24 hour grace period would be fine if desired.

2. I suppose the GNDT should be reset, and perhaps language like “with the GNDT and wiki being updated in accordance with the new ruleset” is the best fix.

3. I think just adding “The terms Emperor and Player are then updated throughout the ruleset to fit the terms chosen in the Targeted Dynasty’s Ascension Address.”

Thanks for the feedback.