Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Proposal: One Good Turn

Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 08 Jun 2022 14:51:45 UTC

Enact a new rule, “Confidants”:-

Each Guardian may have any Atlantean as their Confidant, tracked publicly, and defaulting to having no Confidant. A Guardian may change their own Confidant to any Atlantean, or to nobody, at any time.

If an Atlantean is the Confidant of another Atlantean, then they may take a Declaring action on that Atlantean’s behalf, as if they were that Atlantean.

Allowing a trusted player (or the Emperor) to perform a Declaring action on behalf of another, to see if that gets around some of the timezone and inattentiveness issues. If you know what you want to do on your turn (or can enumerate all possible options, or are happy for your accomplice to wing it), you can privately ask someone else to take that turn on your behalf, if you’re not online when it comes around.

I’ll happily take complex private instructions or vague requests to do whatever seems useful, as Emperor - with the major caveat that the Emperor is often oblivious to how best to play their own dynasty, and that I’ll obviously play it as if I don’t know what the current Prophecy is.

posted by Kevan at 07 Jun 2022 16:56:00 UTC Comments (5)

Comments

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

08-06-2022 05:04:11 UTC

I’m worried that this just allows infinite declarings, as I’m not sure if this is tied to the usual conditions or not. I’d be even more dubious if this wasn’t coming from the emporer.

Kevan: he/him

08-06-2022 07:54:35 UTC

What reading would allow infinite declarings?

“as if they were that Atlantean” is certainly doing a lot of heavy lifting here and could be written as many paragraphs of detailed definition to make it absolutely clear, but if there’s a strong consensus for what it basically means (such that any oddball interpretation would be CfJ’d away, and fail at DoV), we don’t have to pick through it closely.

Josh: he/they

08-06-2022 11:10:26 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

08-06-2022 11:12:05 UTC

Although actually this proposal may create a de facto violation of Fair Play:

A single person should not control more than one non-Idle Guardian within BlogNomic… This extends to exerting full control over the actions of another Guardian, defined here as the controlled Guardian’s game behavior being functionally indistinguishable from if the controlling Guardian was logged into their account and playing through it, over a period of more than a day.

CoV against as I don’t think we want to accidentally create a situation where players are obliged to vote down the DoV of any player who uses this mechanic.

Kevan: he/him

08-06-2022 11:49:20 UTC

Good catch, will repropose with an exemption.

against Withdrawn.