Tuesday, May 02, 2023

Proposal: Opening bid

Vetoed. Josh

Adminned at 04 May 2023 09:10:21 UTC

Add the following to the end of the rule The Chopping Block:

Once in the dynasty, as a communal action, any Engineer may carry out a Final Topple action.

A Final Topple is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Roll DICE100
* Compare the result to the table below
* The Engineer whose name is associated with the dice roll result on the table below has Achieved Victory, and the Engineer carrying out this action should make a blog post announcing that outcome.

The Final Topple dice roll is evaluated as follows:
* 1-79: Josh
* 80: Redtara
* 81-84: Kevan
* 85-88: Summai
* 89-92: Taiga
* 93-96: Brendan
* 97-98: jim3x3
* 99-100: JonathanDark

 

Per comments on The Bargaining Table, it’s hard to see how the Demolition business would have changed the fundamental outcome of the dynasty - which is that I had a commanding position and that the union-led efforts to break through were failing to achieve quorum. A 20% slice for the peloton feels more than fair.

Comments

redtara: they/them

02-05-2023 11:07:31 UTC

No.

redtara: they/them

02-05-2023 11:17:20 UTC

This fails to account for my genious, instant-winning scam that I didn’t get the chance to execute. Should be worth at least a percent.

Josh: Observer he/they

02-05-2023 11:19:41 UTC

Would you vote for this if I gave you 1% from my share?

redtara: they/them

02-05-2023 11:24:11 UTC

Yep!

Josh: Observer he/they

02-05-2023 11:35:32 UTC

Done. Pleasure doing business with you

redtara: they/them

02-05-2023 11:50:45 UTC

To quote Homer Simpson, “I can’t lose!”

JonathanDark: he/him

02-05-2023 13:17:42 UTC

I’m happy with my slice, so this will get a greencheck from me.

redtara: they/them

02-05-2023 14:30:21 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2023 14:58:01 UTC

“it’s hard to see how the Demolition business would have changed the fundamental outcome of the dynasty”

The Demolition is fundamental to the outcome. Nobody can get above 500 Expertise until the current Demolition is closed. You had a loophole that let you get 7 million Security Checks, but there was a second loophole out there - a loophole noticed by at least one other player - which meant that you couldn’t spend them.

(There are also the third and fourth loopholes that make variables orphaned and possibly Response Formats invalid, but since they appear to be affecting everything equally, I think we can ignore them from the perspective of the chop.)

Your loophole got blocked by another loophole. That doesn’t deserve an 80-20 split in your favour; to me it’s a 50-50 split between you and whoever would have been driving the Demolition (whose identity we can’t know for sure, but we can maybe simulate it and roll a die to decide).

You’re also missing out Habanero here, who could have used the loophole and possibly even saw it before I did.

against Let’s have some actual negotiation at the Bargaining Table, and wait to hear from the timezones that haven’t checked in yet.

Josh: Observer he/they

02-05-2023 15:06:35 UTC

to me it’s a 50-50 split between you and whoever would have been driving the Demolition (whose identity we can’t know for sure, but we can maybe simulate it and roll a die to decide).

This is the bit that’s wrong though; there would have been no other party driving the demolition as, as Taiga pointed out, it’s not possible to respond to Demolitions. It would have been resolved by a CfJ and that’s not a 50:50 proposition.

Josh: Observer he/they

02-05-2023 15:07:58 UTC

(I am happy to continue to discuss it and, as the title implies, this is intended as an opening position rather than a final offer - but 50:50 is an absolute no-go for me.)

Lulu: she/her

02-05-2023 15:17:17 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2023 15:20:20 UTC

If it’s not possible to respond to Demolitions, it’s not possible to Build either. And if it’s not possible to Build, it’s not possible to win.

From the flavour text, you’re making this pitch from a point of view of “if it was possible to respond to Demolitions and if the game wasn’t orphan-locked and if we repealed the Demolition rule, Josh would be 80% likely to win”.

I don’t think repealing the Demolition rule is a given, I think you have to factor that in.

Josh: Observer he/they

02-05-2023 15:23:36 UTC

I think I am factoring it in - if Demolitions disappears as an issue then I go up to 90, 95% to win - there doesn’t seem to be anything else in the field that’s modifying the odds here all that much.

I think repealing Demos is the most likely resolution to the current empasse but you’re getting 10% equity to cover the cases where I’m wrong.

Maybe let’s do it this way - what do *you* think a fair equity split is, based purely on merit gamestate, i.e. assuming a clean resolution to the orphans issue and a clean repeal of demolitions?

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2023 15:44:21 UTC

I don’t think there would be a clean repeal of Demolitions! Players would ask for some modification to the rules or gamestate to balance out the fact that a straight repeal would be taking you, as you say, to a 90-95% chance of victory, where you would have previously been with everybody else on 0%.

Josh: Observer he/they

02-05-2023 16:09:15 UTC

I agree! That’s what you’re getting 10-15% equity for here - what brings me down from 90/5% to 80%. But I’m asking for your assessment, with numbers. If you disagree with this proposal then you should do so concretely.

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2023 16:39:21 UTC

Imagining a case where the ruleset was locked at “nobody can build, nobody can win”:

You would have proposed something like “repeal Demolitions so that Josh can win after all; as compensation, add a new rule saying that there’s a 10-15% chance of this victory misfiring and a random other player winning instead”?

The player (whether that was Brendan, Habanero, jjm3x3, Taiga or myself) who had seized the Demolitions deadlock might have counter-proposed with “consider this a stalemate between two loopholes, end the dynasty with a 50/50 coin toss; as compensation, add a small chance of some other players winning the chop”.

I wouldn’t have voted for the first, and would probably have voted for the other, whoever made it. I don’t know what a quorum would have thought, but I guess (1-2% mantle pass shenanigans aside) that’s effectively what we’re voting on here in these comments.

My concrete proposal is as it was at the top of the Bargaining Table: 50% to Josh, and 50% split among Brendan, Habanero, jjm3x3, Taiga and myself, based on which of those players actually saw the Demolition deadlock loophole and would have acted on it (and with 20% of my cut going to Summai). Brendan, Habanero and jjm3x3 haven’t checked in yet, and Taiga hasn’t given their thoughts on it, so I can’t break that down any further. It is potentially a quorum; if some of the group say that they hadn’t actually noticed the Demolition loophole, I think they still deserve some cut for staying in the game enough to have had potential access to it.

Brendan: he/him

02-05-2023 16:43:57 UTC

against I want redtara’s share.

redtara: they/them

02-05-2023 17:13:54 UTC

@Brendan I’ll give you 1% of it.

JonathanDark: he/him

02-05-2023 18:59:10 UTC

for

summai:

03-05-2023 19:26:13 UTC

against I’ve explained my reasoning in the comments of The Bargaining Table

Lulu: she/her

03-05-2023 21:00:52 UTC

against COV

Bucky:

03-05-2023 23:10:00 UTC

against I’ve unidled and Quorum is now 7.

Benbot: he/him

03-05-2023 23:59:41 UTC

against

Lulu: she/her

04-05-2023 00:43:50 UTC

veto This was a mistake.