Thursday, December 28, 2023

Proposal: Odd Omission

Withdrawn. Josh

Adminned at 30 Dec 2023 14:41:50 UTC

Add the following to the beginning of the rule Locations:

A Nercromancer may change their Location to a different valid value as a daily action.


JonathanDark: he/him

28-12-2023 22:25:12 UTC

I think by “value value” you meant “valid value”

Vovix: he/him

28-12-2023 22:30:11 UTC

My concern is that this leads to timing standoffs where everyone wants to see where everyone else is moving before committing to their own move, all while trying to get it in before the Hourglass tick. Maybe since there’s already a “turn” cadence with Hourglass actions, the timing of location movement can just be tied to that?

JonathanDark: he/him

28-12-2023 22:33:16 UTC

I would be supportive of having Necromancers secretly communicating their desired Location to me, if you want it as part of the Hourglass tick.

Vovix: he/him

29-12-2023 02:41:05 UTC

That would be my vote, not sure if that’s better as a separate proposal or a follow-up to this one.

Zack: he/him

29-12-2023 03:13:32 UTC

for We’ve had plenty of dynasties where you can freely move between locations as a daily action and it hasn’t been an issue.

Kevan: he/him

29-12-2023 11:22:37 UTC

against Per Vovix on the timing advantage if you’re in a useful timezone, or if the Emperor is kind enough to wait for you before processing the Hourglass. (And with, you know, proposer Josh and Emperor JonathanDark apparently still having some formal cross-dynastic favours running.)

Josh: Observer he/they

29-12-2023 11:35:14 UTC

Oh, Kevan, you have to stop doing this kind of thing, honestly.

There are no favours owed between me and JD, and I don’t really believe that you believe there are.

I’m not going to vote for your bad proposal because of vague mutterings; I’m supportive of the effort to move away from favour-based economies but that implementation is just not right, and it you’re not willing to move to where the votes are then I can’t do much to help.

Kevan: he/him

29-12-2023 12:14:38 UTC

Oh, I’d still be against “move freely to be ready for the Emperor action” in a standalone dynasty, for the timezone thing alone.

I’m adding an additional thought bubble to show how the revelation about cross-dynastic favours will affect the moves that players make in the game. (I didn’t know whether you and JD owed favours to each other, only that both of you still had at least one pointed somewhere: if JD owes a favour to anyone who isn’t me, that’s still a reason to be cautious about any Emperor-timing mechanics.)

We’re still finding out where the votes are and what people think. If we’re moving towards other implementations but want to play on under “certain players are known to have cross-dynastic favours” for now, then that’s how I’ll be playing it.

Josh: Observer he/they

29-12-2023 12:37:51 UTC

Why do you think I have “at least one pointed somewhere”? I don’t believe I have said anything to that effect anywhere.

I also don’t believe we are “still finding out where the votes are and what people think”; we have already had a whole failed proposal and an extensive discussion both on the blog and on discord, none of the output of which seems to have made it into the second text.

For what it’s worth, banning imperial favours outside of malign emperorships would seem like an easy sell to me.

All I’ll say for now is your continued insistence on implying or stating that the direct statements of other players regarding favours should be open to skeptical examination (cf specifically the Vovix / Snisbo arrangement at the end of Clucky IX) skirts perilously close to breaching the community guideline on assumption of good faith.

Kevan: he/him

29-12-2023 13:02:01 UTC

You said “I currently owe multiple unpaid debts” on Ear of the King, prior to JonathanDark calling one in, so I assume you have at least one still going. I don’t know whether anyone owes you a kingmaking favour right now, but if you want that uncertainty to be part of the game, there it is.

The Vovix/Snisbo conversation just brought the idea into the light last dynasty, as I’ve said I fully accept their characterisation of it as a casual “I owe you one” comment, and don’t believe they did anything mechanically or socially inappropriate. My concern is far more with the kind of kingmaking “chits” that you and JonathanDark seem to be circulating - which aren’t inherently inappropriate either, it’s all just the metagame of a game of self-amendment.

JonathanDark: he/him

29-12-2023 14:18:04 UTC

Just to clear the air here, I don’t owe nor am I owed any favors. Anything I do in this dynasty, I intend to be as fair and balanced as possible. I know I’m not bound by the Imperial Style that I stated in my AA, but when I said “Protective”, I meant it.

Protective (when taking any actions - including voting - will try to be fair to all players, including potential future players)


29-12-2023 17:48:53 UTC


Vovix: he/him

29-12-2023 20:59:29 UTC

against In favor of fancy travel.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-12-2023 14:41:21 UTC

against Withdrawn in favour of subsequently proposed travel mechanics