Friday, July 04, 2025

Proposal: Keep Endgame Verdict Absolutely Nonrandom

In “The Threshold”, remove the definition of the Finalize action, and replace “Final Acronym” with “Endgame Acronym”.

In “Acronym”, replace “If the state of the blog is Endgame, cease performing the rest of this action and instead Perform the Finalize action” with:-

If the state of the blog is Endgame and a single Wordsmith has more points than any other Wordsmith (ignoring any Wordsmiths that are not allowed to achieve Victory for other reasons), skip the rest of this action and instead make a blog post declaring that Wordsmith victorious; upon doing so, that Wordsmith achieves victory

Replace “If the result is greater than or equal to the Threshold” with:-

If the result is greater than or equal to the Threshold (or if the state of the blog is Endgame)

Tied endgame scores are quite likely to happen, with how close the scores are. We could just run another round of Endgame if that happens, instead of flipping a coin.

Comments

Raven1207: he/they

04-07-2025 08:27:53 UTC

A) I find it hilarious that it says the player with the most wins and you are currently in the lead.

B) I feel like at this point, unless the score thing is done privately, then it feels like it just forces the other players who are not in the tie for the lead to just not put their Backronym to just choose which of the 2 to win. Additionally, if by chance 3 players are in a 3-way tie, then the remaining 6 could drag things out in order to make where 2 vs 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3. Likewise, if someone idles it puts it at a risk of a 3 vs 3 tie. And with the ties, the players campaigning for their choice could just give them 5 points and others 1 points.

Raven1207: he/they

04-07-2025 08:28:44 UTC

And I took too long to comment within the edit window.

Sorry

against

Kevan: he/him

04-07-2025 08:38:34 UTC

I’m not adding the highest-score-wins victory condition, Clucky’s proposal to add such an endgame was voted through yesterday. You cast a non-counted DEF vote on it.

And the Endgame rounds are being done secretly, that was also part of Clucky’s proposal.

All my proposal is doing here is changing how the rule handles tiebreaks.

Raven1207: he/they

04-07-2025 08:43:31 UTC

Oh

CoV for

JonathanDark: Puzzler he/him

04-07-2025 11:22:52 UTC

The second instruction isn’t going to happen if “Reverse Polarity” is enacted, since I’m trying to change the text from “greater than” to “less than” in that Proposal.

Bucky:

04-07-2025 17:14:19 UTC

imperial

You must be logged in as a player to post comments.