Sunday, August 22, 2021

Proposal: Put it on my bill

Self-killed. Josh

Adminned at 24 Aug 2021 16:47:33 UTC

Throughout the Dynastic ruleset, change all instances of the word “Proposal” to “Bill”.

If there is not a sub rule of “Victory” called “Bills” create one. Then set the text of “Bills” to

A Proposal is a Bill if any of the following are true:

* It specifies changes to the dynastic ruleset
* It changes a non-ruleset part of the gamestate
* It proposes to make a new Active Special Case rule, or activate an inactive Special Case rule, or change the contents of an active special case rule

A non-proposal Votable Matter can never be a Bill.

Bills may only be resolved if they have been open for more than 48 hours. A Bill is Popular if has not been vetoed and it has more valid FOR votes than AGAINST votes, otherwise it is unpopular. Legislators may not cast a vote on a Bill if it is less than 4 hours old (although votes legally cast if a Bill is less than 4 hours old due to being made before this was a rule are still valid)

Remove the text “A Bill which is Pending, Popular, at least 12 hours old, and for which all older Pending proposals are Self-Killed, Vetoed, Popular or Unpopular, is known as an “Bill Proposal” from the rule “Victory”

Remove the text “, and no bills are Enactable” from the rule “Victory”

If Proposal: Self Consistency was enacted, add the following to the Mandate List; otherwise as it to the list in the rule The Veto List:

* It does not make any changes to non-dynastic rules (other than making a new Active Special Case rule, or activating an inactive Special Case rule, or changing the contents of an active special case rule)

I think “every bill takes 48 hours to process” is probably the best way to deal with any and all admin timing shenanigans. It also opens the door for various shenanigan around giving people multiple votes and allows us to resolve the “spitefully vote-locking proposals to try and ensure they fail” issues.

Also making it so you can’t bypass the bill rules by making a proposal that changes both dynastic and core rules. Lets make people use CFJs for that


Kevan: City he/him

22-08-2021 18:24:01 UTC

Community Guidelines is in the ruleset now, Clucky, please stop the bad faith statements that some players are acting out of spite.

You’re welcome to think it, and to choose your alliances and game actions accordingly, but actively announcing to the group that someone is acting spitefully, lying, playing the game wrong, etc. is just souring the atmosphere.


22-08-2021 18:28:04 UTC

Why remove the wincon?

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:37:18 UTC

@Kevan its not a “bad faith statement” when Bucky *literally* admitted “tactically shutting edit windows is not only in the spirit of the dynasty but also essentially required for it to function”

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:37:55 UTC

@Cuddlebeam this doesn’t remove the wincon unless I’m missing something

Josh: he/they

22-08-2021 18:39:57 UTC

I agree with Kevan.

I also think that the new addition to the Veto List and the definition of Bills is weirdly circular.


22-08-2021 18:43:10 UTC

@Clucky: I’m referring to this “Remove the text “, and no bills are Enactable, then the author of the most recently Enacted Scoring Bill achieves victory.” from the rule “Victory””

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:43:43 UTC

How is pointing out that players have admitted using a certain game tactic that I find to be bad for the game and thus should be changed against community guidelines?

And I’m not sure how its circular

the various things you can do:

- Changes just dynastic rules/gamestate: valid bill
- Changes only non dynastic rules: not a bill
- Changes dynastic and non-dynastic rules at the same time: misfit bill, don’t due that, use a CfJ instead
- Changes neither dynastic rules, non-dynastic rules, or gamestate: ????? I don’t think your proposal does anything

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:44:21 UTC

oooh wow yeah I missed that cuddle beam good catch was just trying to remove the enactable bit


22-08-2021 18:45:16 UTC


This dynasty is incompatible with open edit windows. This mandates both my vote against the proposal to hold them open and my decision to do so now.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:48:10 UTC

how is this dynasty incompatible with open edit windows???

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:49:16 UTC

I hope you realize the irony of saying “this dynasty is incompatible with open edit windows” even though you took advantage of the open edit windows yourself with your proposal

Kevan: City he/him

22-08-2021 18:54:07 UTC

[Clucky] Attributing Bucky’s behaviour to (what on day one of a dynasty can only be personal) spite, when they’ve literally attributed it to tactics, is bad faith.

The one-line takeaway the Community Guidelines gives us is “Simply stated, players should always treat each other with courtesy and respect.” This (and comments like “I guess you just wanna be rude”) on Walk the Walk) are not courteous.


22-08-2021 18:55:21 UTC

I may be taking advantage of them, but I have yet to use the proposal-editing scam; I’m only edit-locking others’ proposals under certain conditions where I feel the risk of allowing edits is unacceptable.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:58:25 UTC

Voting against proposals before people have time to change them in order to gain a tactical advantage also isn’t being courteous. It is, in fact, a spiteful action to puts winning above common courtesy.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 18:59:44 UTC

where is the “risk of allowing edits”? There is still plenty of time to vote after an edit. In fact, this proposal would guarantee you have 44 whole hours to cast a vote after an edit.


22-08-2021 19:10:23 UTC

You’re doing a good job of convincing me that your proposals are relatively safe to leave the windows open on. Not so much with anyone else’s.

Mine definitely aren’t.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 19:14:05 UTC

why aren’t they safe to leave open?

it this passes, people would have 44 hours to respond to any changes you make. that seems pretty safe

meanwhile, even if it doesn’t pass, people would still have 8 hours to respond. Which seems like more than enough time to catch mistakes.

the one area where you could see issues is with someone accidentally messing up a veto list requirement. But “you made an honest mistake but now have some time to fix it” feels better for the overall health of the game than “whoops now you can’t make another proposal for the rest of the day, maybe longer if the queue is slow”

Darknight: he/him

22-08-2021 19:42:05 UTC



22-08-2021 20:24:28 UTC



22-08-2021 20:28:13 UTC

Please explain why your edit windows wouldn’t be safe Bucky.

I don’t get how edit windows could be dangerous.

(Is it because of the “last enacted proposal” thing in the wincon so you want people’s proposals to fail?)


22-08-2021 20:42:48 UTC


It’s because I don’t want to need to constantly watch the proposals before my own proposal in the queue for the entirety of their edit windows just in case they’re edited to make my proposal misfire.

Granted, it’s merely extremely annoying rather than a dirty attack when the proposal’s author can’t close the edit window on my proposal after changing their own, but it still a toxic attention sink.

Note that the only proposals I’ve been closing windows on have been the ones whose windows were still open when I posted a proposal, and which weren’t proposed by the Wielder.


22-08-2021 20:45:42 UTC

@Bucky: you only need to avoid the definition of Misfit at the time your proposal was posted – if the definition changes while the proposal’s pending, the proposal’s still OK.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 20:48:17 UTC

How could someone editing their proposal to make your pending proposal a misfire? Misfire status is calculated at the time that your proposal is created


22-08-2021 20:48:47 UTC

An example change to kill this proposal would be to once again rename the list of mandates so that both the branches of “If Proposal: Self Consistency was enacted” fail to do anything; that renders this proposal Misfit by preventing the addition it’s required to make.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 20:50:21 UTC

but why would anyone do such a thing?

I feel like we should be able to safely assume players aren’t going to intentionally edit their proposals as a means to try and sabotage a proposal someone else made. That would be a pretty dirty move.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 20:56:10 UTC

that being said, having some safety mechanism that prevents proposals from causing “add xxx to the mandate list” from suddenly becoming nonfunctional might be a good idea to introduce.

but I feel the right way to fix that is to add a rule that fixes it, not assume that other players are maliciously going to sabotage things.


22-08-2021 20:58:13 UTC

>but why would anyone do such a thing?
Because it’s the premise and major mechanic of the dynasty.

Fortunately, there is a safety measure in place right now to prevent such attacks, which I have been using. Too bad this proposal removes the measure.

Clucky: he/him

22-08-2021 21:18:05 UTC

I do not believe that using underhanded tactics (which editing your proposal in order to cause someone else’s pending proposal to fail would certainly qualify as) are the premise or a major mechanic of this dynasty

Janet: she/her

23-08-2021 01:51:28 UTC



23-08-2021 03:03:58 UTC


Raven1207: he/they

23-08-2021 04:24:33 UTC


Josh: he/they

23-08-2021 10:02:36 UTC


Lulu: she/her

23-08-2021 21:30:15 UTC


Raven1207: he/they

24-08-2021 12:56:21 UTC


Josh: he/they

24-08-2021 14:00:55 UTC

By my count - 3 up, 2 down, 4 defs

Clucky: he/him

24-08-2021 16:22:55 UTC


as this seems to have middling interest at best. plus if that timer proposal passes, needing 48 hours to get a proposal to pass might be troubling