Friday, June 02, 2023

Proposal: Reaching Through the Bars

failed 3-8 by chiiika.

Adminned at 04 Jun 2023 10:29:43 UTC

Add a subrule to “Tier 2: Post Singularity Consciousness” called “Containment”:-

A Mindjacker may use VETO as a voting icon to cast a Vote on a Proposal that was authored by a Mindjacker whose Level is lower than their own, and which would directly modify dynastic rules or dynastic gamestate if enacted; this renders the Proposal Vetoed.

The Ascendant is encouraged to veto any proposal which he regards as attempting to circumvent this ability.

Inhabitants of the unenlightened lower realities perhaps shouldn’t be able to freely amend the higher ones against the wishes of those who exist there.

Or even to amend their own reality, in a way that those viewing that simulation don’t like.


Josh: Bookie he/they

02-06-2023 12:29:57 UTC

Will this end up having a mild rich-get-richer effect?

JonathanDark: he/him

02-06-2023 13:16:46 UTC

Maybe limit it to a one-time use that gets reset whenever the Mindjacker Ascends?

Josh: Bookie he/they

02-06-2023 13:33:19 UTC

Or a single communal use for each tier for proposals that affect that tier?

Kevan: he/him

02-06-2023 13:39:01 UTC

More of an endgame lockdown than rich-get-richer, I think. The higher level players wouldn’t be able to do anything they couldn’t do before, they just get the option to shut down catch-up proposals.

One-time uses don’t seem like they’d pan out while proposals are free: if you burn up a one-time veto on my proposal, I can just repropose it, or propose two copies in the first place.


02-06-2023 14:48:21 UTC


This causes some subtle admin headaches to figure out whether a proposal was validly vetoed.


02-06-2023 14:50:23 UTC

It also definitely shouldn’t affect the ability of Mindjackers to amend stuff on their own level.

Benbot: he/him

02-06-2023 15:32:16 UTC


Kevan: he/him

02-06-2023 15:40:31 UTC

[Bucky] I’m not sure what subtle headaches you mean, but the Ascendant can chime in with a regular veto (even pre-emptively) if somebody writes a proposal in a deliberately complex way that would render any higher-level vetoes ambiguous.

What’s the objection to own-level amendments? It seems an obvious fit for the narrative.

Benbot: he/him

02-06-2023 15:51:46 UTC

Also, as much as I liked Halucinations. This seems like a dynasty where this could lead to a technically fair softlock/stall.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

02-06-2023 16:31:00 UTC

against hard against

JonathanDark: he/him

02-06-2023 16:39:34 UTC

Is “hard against” more or less than “vehemently against”?


02-06-2023 16:45:58 UTC


lemon: she/her

02-06-2023 17:10:53 UTC

for i’m actually fine with this (it’s very thematic!), provided we introduce some higher-tier rules that make things harder for players who’re ahead, to balance things out in the long run.


02-06-2023 18:39:30 UTC

for Agreeing with lemon. Perhaps it should be harder for people to veto if the difference in levels is too high. If you’re in a high plane of existence, it should be difficult to peek way in.

Chiiika: she/her

02-06-2023 18:58:18 UTC

against nah.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

02-06-2023 21:25:19 UTC

@JonathanDark essentially, I’ve played dynasties before that meddled with voting mechanics themselves and it was not enjoyable

JonathanDark: he/him

02-06-2023 21:51:11 UTC

against TDS has me convinced

Raven1207: he/they

03-06-2023 02:59:43 UTC


Josh: Bookie he/they

03-06-2023 09:00:25 UTC