BlogNomic: The Ninth Dynasty of ais523

You have an odd idea of what “compromise” means.

Returning this fully to being an emperor judgement call removes the entire point of having put the amendment together in the first place. Working with the invisible constraint of what lemon reckons just isn’t a fun mechanic, especially when you insist the agendas be able to reflect rules that don’t even exist yet.

If playing a game which is just ‘will lemon let my day-one scam through instead of anyone else’s’ is the order of the day then I’m out. I idle; quorum is unchanged.

This does feel like it only rewards big day-one scams that pass the subjective Emperor test, or all Agendas being impossible until amendments pass to make them possible.

y’all, i tried to make this clear with the commentary section, but the idea here isn’t that this is the end-state for this rule; it’s that this modifies everything /except/ for the contentious clause, so that we can try to work on it further without retreading the rest of the same ground over and over again. i completely agree that this isn’t the ideal state of the final clause! i just also know that further revisions to it will require a lot of discussion, and i don’t want the other good clauses to be caught in the crossfire of that!

i genuinely don’t understand — what did i do here that gave the impression that i’m trying to shut down all further discussion about this topic? i had an idea in my head for this dynasty (which i was explicit about from the start!), but it’s not just about what my idea is. i know that. i’d /like/ to have mostly open-ended agendas, but it seems everyone either hates that or is lukewarm on it. so we have to do something else; that’s okay!

i don’t think that the ruleset should have to be 100% fleshed out before the agendas come into play; but surely that restriction and this ill-defined clause aren’t the only possible options that anyone can think of?

As a player who is now being asked to write Agendas, it’s really hard to know what your preferred “The Great Machine judges it to be unfairly easy or difficult to Fulfill” bullet means for that. Even if I take a route one approach of “collect X Cogs”, I have no idea what value to give to X - if I call 20 and everyone else calls an equivalent of 10, will my Agenda be rejected as “unfairly difficult” in comparison to the others? Or is that the game?

Josh’s “7-15 days of effort under the current ruleset” seemed helpful for giving a ballpark to that, and for making it clear that an Agenda of “activate the Hydroponic Facility - which doesn’t exist yet, so you’d better get proposing!” isn’t what we’re doing here.

... Or are we doing that?

I should probably point out right now that this proposal explicitly *disallows* agendas based on speculative rules.

To take the hydroponics example, there is no facility with that name, and therefore the fulfilment of any agenda that relies on it requires “capability that would not be available to a random recipient of that Agenda with the gamestate of a newly-joining player”.

Note that the ability to make proposals isn’t enough to class you as able to achieve an agenda either, as being required to make one would be an “action that is not governed explicitly by the BlogNomic dynastic ruleset (beyond simply being present in an Agenda)”

If speculative rules are disallowed, how does this differ from the original “under the current ruleset as written” clause of Make God Laugh that Lemon is objecting to and has removed here?

I’m presuming that it’s an oversight. The proposal is originally Josh’s after all.

damn it all. yes, that’s an oversight. i was trying to be helpful by re-proposing the rest of Josh’s restrictions. (in case it wasn’t clear, “The Great Machine judges it to be unfairly easy or difficult to Fulfill” is what’s currently already in the ruleset; it’s only mentioned in this proposal as a neutral non-change. it’s not “preferred”.)

i’ve also realised that the existence of facilities as a mechanic which /can’t/ be determined before the game begins really muddies the waters with regards to this do-we-flesh-out-the-rules-or-leave-them-open-ended thing.

withdrawn.