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.

Why remove the wincon?

@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”

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

I agree with Kevan.

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

@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””

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

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

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.

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

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

Facepalm

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?)

*sigh*

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.

@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.

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

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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

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

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