Friday, July 03, 2009

Proposal: Reinstituting Metadynasties

Fails 1-6. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 04 Jul 2009 23:04:55 UTC

Create a subrule of the Core Rule “Dynasties” titled “Metadynasties” with the following text:

Some Dynasties (called Metadynasties) have no Writer and are named according to the number of Metadynasties of Blognomic (eg. First Metadynasty). Metadynasties may only be started by a successful Proposal, CfJ, or as allowed by another rule.

When a Metadynasty begins, the previous Dynasty ends and all Dynastic rules are repealed. The theme (and appropriate substitution of keywords) may be chosen by any method deemed necessary.

Because there is no Writer, DEFERENTIAL votes are counted as explicit votes of abstention and no one may VETO a Proposal.

The exact wording of the Metadynasty rule as it was the last time it was in use.



03-07-2009 00:06:19 UTC


arthexis: he/him

03-07-2009 00:10:03 UTC

@MacMed: It is a tradition among us that the emperor doesn’t vote on core rule changes, so you should try not being deferential on this one.


03-07-2009 01:19:09 UTC

CoV against , I am assuming that the rule was taken out in the first place for good reason.

Clucky: he/him

03-07-2009 01:19:41 UTC

Eh? The emperor is a player and is allowed to vote on core rule changes. When is that tradition?

against There is no reason to repel all dynastic rules. For the same reason that we don’t repel all dynastic rules when someone else wins—we might want to keep some. Any rule that starts a meta dynasty can include a “repel all dynastic rules” clause.

Besides, meta dynasties are dangerous. Having them in the rules makes them expected—we should really try avoiding them.


03-07-2009 01:32:48 UTC

There’s nothing wrong with Metadynasties, they are traditional and had been in use for ages without any problems. In fact, they resolved problems rather nicely; I suspect there would have been talk of a Metadynasty solution to the last Dynasty, if they had still existed.

I never understood the reason why they were removed in the first place. The reason to repeal all Dynastic Rules is so that no one has an advantage heading into the next Dynasty; a fresh start is fair for everyone.

Clucky: he/him

03-07-2009 01:38:35 UTC

Just because they have been used before doesn’t mean they should continue to be used. For the same reason we shouldn’t get rid of the emperor’s veto powers, we shouldn’t get rid of emperor’s altogether.

A meta dynasty is a perfect anti-compromise. Its “I can’t have the toy so I’m going to break the toy so that you don’t get it.

arthexis: he/him

03-07-2009 01:39:31 UTC

@clucky: it’s not written, but on like the last 10 dynasties or so, most of the time emperors didn’t vote on core rule changes

Clucky: he/him

03-07-2009 01:43:26 UTC

Thats dumb. The emperor should be able to vote on rule changes, not Yuri’s fault they didn’t in the past.

To quote Kevans original reasoning for removing the rule ” If you want to start a Metadynasty, you just have to propose “Bang, dynasty ends, repeal all dynastic rules, Arthexis is no longer the Writer. We shall call this a Metadynasty.” and Rules 1.4 and 1.5 automatically take care of DEFERENTIALs without a Writer, and the fact that nobody can cast a VETO.”

So if ya’ll are so childish that you need a meta dyansty, it still exists. But it doesn’t clutter the ruleset and isn’t there to make new people think its the norm.

arthexis: he/him

03-07-2009 01:53:25 UTC

Hey, yeah, I am not endorsing non-voting behavior, just commenting on historical trends.


03-07-2009 02:01:37 UTC

I understand that Metadynasties could be started on the spot, but I want that rule back so that I can then propose a meta if an NPC wins. This is in response to arthexis’ comment asking me to propose an alternate solution.

@Clucky: What the heck was that PM all about?

Amnistar: he/him

03-07-2009 03:54:57 UTC

Voting Trend wise I’d say that rather than the emperor not voting, it doesn’t make sense to vote Def on these because it’s not dynastically related.  Unless you wish to appeal to the experience of the emperor as a player, you should simply vote.


03-07-2009 10:10:41 UTC

against I’ve been convinced. I like the idea of Metadynasties being an option, but as Clucky/Kevan says, we can define a Metadynasty in any dynastic rule that creates one.

And since I’m new, could someone explain the First Metadynasty of Rodlen?


03-07-2009 19:51:03 UTC

against “Writer”?

arthexis: he/him

04-07-2009 04:19:30 UTC

It’s a reference to my dynasty.


04-07-2009 10:40:30 UTC

@arthexis: I know, but I’m surprised it wasn’t fixed in the proposal.

Darknight: he/him

04-07-2009 21:57:48 UTC