I’m personally unsure about this - mild ; because I don’t feel like having more Imp Style descriptor is the way out. I feel like what just happened is more than if they are “I would take this action”; and I think it falls more inside the scam ratings instead of this.

I think that the lesson we should all be taking from all of this is that imperial styles are less precisely useful than the current meta would suggest

I think this is the right point of focus: how much the Emperor is expected to put the brakes on in the name of fairness or scam avoidance, when players appear to have voted through an unfair or scammable rule.

on it being a new and disconnected pair of Style keywords, though. There’s significant overlap with the Protective style (“will try to be fair to all players”), and it may be useful to draw in the bottom line of a strongest possible “Scam-Loathing” attitude where the Emperor says that they would never do anything to consciously assist or support the use of a loophole, to make it clearer that Scam-Averse isn’t that.

Kevan - what do you think the difference of Scam-Loathing and Scam-Averse is?

Scam-Averse is “will alert players to any loopholes they notice; will veto major scams; will only assist a scam if the rules require them to”. Scam-Loathing would presumably be something like “will always move to close loopholes, will veto all scams, will never take any action that assists a scam”.

“will only assist a scam if the rules require them to” isn’t a great wording because BlogNomic rules never require anybody to do something that they don’t want to do, players always have the option to idle or walk away. In the context of how rules are written, I’d read that as “if the rules encourage them to”.

Scam-loathing does have some fuzzy implications, though. If a player cooks up a scam that doesn’t require any activity from the emperor, is the emperor then impelled to vote against a subsequent DoV, even at the expense of voting on the belief that the declarant has achieved victory? Are they impelled to post a CfJ reverting the scam? Are they impelled to refuse to carry out their duties until the gamestate is ‘corrected’ such that the scam didn’t take place? Is any of that consistent with the community guidelines?

It would need tight borders.

There’s already some overlap in the current Imperial Styles. I don’t see the the current state as particularly harmful, and these additions could be useful. Agree with Josh that Imperial Styles are less precisely useful, but disagree that Josh that this Proposal is a bad idea because of that.