I’d approve this. My latest scam has also already been detailed at the Ganglion, here: https://blognomic.com/archive/ganglion_2#comments , but I very much like this generalist approach as well for further convenience’s sake.

I’m in favor of this. does anyone have any flaws they see in it?

I like the idea of allowing complex GNDT edits to be summarised in a blog post, but think it’s a mistake to try to make it compulsory.  If it was optional and someone ignored it, they could just expect a heavier hand from the other players when challenging or tidying up the gamestate. (If it’s really not worth anyone’s effort to comb through work out exactly what an impolite scammer’s final score should be, they’re likely just to CfJ it to the least useful result.)

Also some haziness here. If I make three actions and an hour later want to take another one, does that make the first three illegal because I didn’t “first make a blog post”? And what’s an “action”? Would an admin enacting four proposals or a player casting four votes have to fill out this paperwork?

I like it a lot. Have been wondering how to transfer actions partially to the blog, it’s really hard to keep track. It would be nice to have a bit of narrative going as well that way, I’d make blog posts the default action for most moves.

On the plus side the dynastic experiment is going as planned so far, we are majestic and sprawling.

But yes it needs some clarification. Maybe we can tether it to a few important actions and just make it recommended that other actions around those are also mentioned?

making it optional is a good idea.

Well it’s too late to change it now, maybe I should stop making proposals before I go to bed. Anyway, you can either choose to pass the proposal and fix it later via other proposals or CfJ or just fail it and I’d have to submit another one.

[Kevan] Hm, I guess actions are taken to be the simple English meaning of the term. Maybe a better choice would be Dynastic Actions, thus no paperwork for admins or for people voting on proposals. I also guess there should be a time limit added, does within an hour sound like a good amount of time or should it be something shorter?

I would be in favor of a version where this is mandatory only for Cuddlebeam.

You’d be free to amend it to be so.

Per earlier comments.

I’ve drafted a revision.

very good, awaiting redraft. I think my eyeballs may fall out if I try to keep track of the gndt else.

Like others, I like the concept but there are some weird sharp edges here.

It’ll have to wait until pokes’ proposal passes, and mine immediately after it.

  moving along