Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Proposal: Reorganizing our Metadynasty for Victory Conditions

Timed out

Adminned at 26 Dec 2008 04:12:33 UTC

Move the second and third paragraphs of rule “Membership” into a sub-rule of their own named “Faction Posts”.

Create a new rule called “Victory Hall”:

Whenever a Citizen becomes the Watcher of one of the Factions, the name of that Citizen shall be added to a list at the end of this rule, followed by the name of the Faction where that Citizen achieved victory. A Citizens name and faction may be added once each time that Citizen achieves Victory in a Faction. This list of names is collectively known as the “Victory Hall” and its only purpose is to track the Victories of Citizens within Factions. If a single Citizen has achieved Victory in Faction BLO, Faction GNO and Faction MIC, that Citizen achieves Victory in Blognomic.

So with this version, one does not need to win in the three at the same time. The idea is simple: Even if you manage to twist the rules of a Dynasty in your direction and win, you still have to move on to the next and win there. So, to win one needs to adapt and take advantage of not just one, but three wildly different rulesets. And if someone achieves victory within one Faction, that Citizen would be compelled to allow someone else to win too so that e can move on and take on the next one. If a Faction Watcher leaves for another Faction, it counts as if going Idle (the Citizens of that Faction may still take advise to guide the dynasty from the watcher or put someone else into power when the Watcher is gone). In other words, this opens up a world of possibilities.





24-12-2008 14:08:15 UTC

for I like this a lot more than relics.


24-12-2008 15:06:47 UTC


Rule 2.1:“Rodlen is treated as the Watcher”

Rule 2.2:“Every rule existing in the Blognomic ruleset is considered implicit in each Faction’s Ruleset”

Rule 1.8:“a single Citizen, known as the Watcher”

Rule 1.2:”excluding Rules 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8, Idle Citizens are not counted as Citizens”

Looks like a no go to me.

arthexis: he/him

24-12-2008 15:18:16 UTC

You have NOT achieved Victory in any Faction anyways, and that is what the Victory Hall tracks. As we decided on a previous dynasty, being the Watcher and achieving Victory are two different things.

Not only that, but because you are the watcher, you are not allowed to achieve Victory at all!

Clucky: he/him

24-12-2008 15:50:03 UTC

against If rules are not reset when victory is obtained, once someone wins they would be in a constant state of winning and keep getting added to the list.


24-12-2008 16:23:11 UTC

against  for the same reason as Bucky and Clucky.


24-12-2008 16:43:29 UTC


arthexis: he/him

24-12-2008 17:07:31 UTC

If rules are not reset when victory is obtained, once someone wins they would be in a constant state of winning and keep getting added to the list <—how is it possible this happens??

After you win, you do not win again because you are already the Watcher. Only Non-watchers can obtain victory! Otherwise, the whole of Blognomic would have never worked.

Also my proposal says you get added when you “become” the Watcher. You cannot become the Watcher if you’re already the Watcher, anyways.


24-12-2008 17:08:11 UTC

What Bucky said stops your idea.

arthexis: he/him

24-12-2008 17:25:19 UTC

So basically what Bucky says is that the Watcher exists in all Factions because when Rule 1.8 interacts with 1.2 it causes the Watcher to never become idle?

Well, ok. If people agree to that interpretation, I’ll take my proposal back. However, it implies that Rodlen can vote on all Factions. It also implies that there cannot be Watchers in the Factions, period.

Finally, because Factions do not share gamestate with Blognomic, this also implies that the determination of who is the Watcher IS NOT PART OF THE GAMESTATE. Thus, the conclusion is that every single proposal that causes someone to achieve Victory is invalid, unless the proposal directly writes the name of the new Watcher to the Ruleset, because that is the only other way to keep that information without storing it in gamestate.


24-12-2008 17:28:38 UTC

So, basically, no matter what we do, this dynasty is messed up.

arthexis: he/him

24-12-2008 17:33:18 UTC

No rather, EVERY dynasty is messed up. There needs to be a core rule saying “Until another Citizen achieves Victory, the Watcher is <Insert Name HEre>”.

Otherwise, there is never a real Watcher (since we are saying that being the Watcher is not gamestate, it needs to be explicitly stated on the ruleset to exist).


24-12-2008 17:36:15 UTC

This…can’t be good.

Amnistar: he/him

24-12-2008 19:28:48 UTC

against Rodlen is still watcher, even if he were to idle, he would still be watcher.

Darknight: he/him

24-12-2008 21:08:04 UTC


arthexis: he/him

24-12-2008 21:34:24 UTC

@Amni: I understand about Rodlen still being watcher even if e goes idle. However, what about the issue I explain on my comment? Is being a Watcher part of the gamestate or is it not?

Amnistar: he/him

25-12-2008 02:07:44 UTC

“When a DoV passes, all other active DoVs are failed, and a new Dynasty begins with the Citizen who made the DoV as its Watcher. (That Citizen may pass this role to another Citizen at this point, if he wishes.) “

it is part of the gamestate, and the only referenced means of changing it is right there.  That is the only way there is a new watcher.

Amnistar: he/him

25-12-2008 02:09:17 UTC

as far as their not being watchers in any faction, that’s completely untrue. A faction can have it’s own watcher, but Rodlen remains the watcher over the entire dynasty.


25-12-2008 02:21:55 UTC

However, there may be only one watcher in the entire dynasty.

arthexis: he/him

25-12-2008 03:50:15 UTC

If Amni is ok, then it means Bucky’s argument does not apply.


25-12-2008 04:07:06 UTC


Amnistar: he/him

25-12-2008 05:53:59 UTC

I’d rather it simply track who acheives victory in a dynasty, than who becomes the watcher, then we don’t have to worry about it.

SingularByte: he/him

25-12-2008 15:39:41 UTC


Amnistar: he/him

26-12-2008 03:21:53 UTC

2 For

8 Against


26-12-2008 11:16:59 UTC