Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Proposal: Resistance Redux

Times out and fails 1-7 -Larrytheturtle

Adminned at 15 Nov 2013 07:54:56 UTC

In the rule “Fight the Power”, insert after the first paragraph:

Power may be freely traded between Oligarchs and between Oligarchs and the Despot. It is the responsibility of Oligarchs to ensure that the terms of such trades are adhered to.

Throughout the ruleset, change “assign an Oligarch” to “assign an Office-less Oligarch”.

Append to the rule “Offices”:

The Despot and all holders of Offices of Command or Authority, taken together, may be referred to as The Government.

Enact a new rule entitled “The Resistance”:

Any Oligarch may, as a daily action, join the Resistance and change their Office to “Rebel” by paying 1 Power to The Resistance. Every Oligarch may freely give Power to The Resistance. The Resistance’s Power is tracked in a GNDT row labeled “Resistance” with all other columns empty.

If more than 1/3 of all Oligarchs, rounded down, are Rebels, then any Rebel may make a Resolution by spending 7 power and submitting a Proposal with a subject starting with “[Res]”. No more than 2 Resolutions may be pending at a time, and all pending Resolutions may be failed at any time if the number of Seditious Rebels falls below the threshold stipulated above.

Resolutions are limited to:
* Distributing Power within the Resistance. Resolutions cannot create or destroy Power or affect the Power of non-Rebels.
* Imposing or altering a hierarchy or order within the Resistance. Resolutions cannot impair or enhance any Oligarch’s ability to vote on Votable Matters.

Oligarchs who are not Rebels must pay 1 Power to The Resistance to vote on a Resolution, Oligarchs in the Government must pay 5 Power to The Resistance to vote on a Resolution, and the Despot must pay 15 Power to Veto a Resolution. In addition to the normal rules for Proposals, a Resolution may pass if at least 3/4 of all of the larger group of [Rebels or Seditious Oligarchs], rounded up, vote FOR it and there are more votes FOR it than AGAINST.

Now ignoring Seditiousness, explicitly limiting power, and making voting counts fairer.


Josh: he/they

13-11-2013 14:57:11 UTC

against Skju, I’m afraid that your constant lobbying for a rebellion has undermined my confidence in your loyalty.

Kevan: he/him

13-11-2013 15:50:51 UTC

against Subquorum proposals should be treated with care. The limitation that they can only do things like “impose order within the Resistance” seems dangerously vague. (“I say I say, as an unhappy Resistance member I refuse to do any more resisting until Goldstein has achieved victory!” “Very well! To impose order here, I shall make a Resolution to allow Goldstein to achieve victory.”)

RaichuKFM: she/her

13-11-2013 19:24:29 UTC

imperial Ooh, that is quite a loophole…


13-11-2013 20:02:11 UTC



13-11-2013 21:36:43 UTC

On the contrary, you should be celebrating my efforts to limit the power of any possible rebellion! In any case, we can easily fix Kevan’s small loophole soon after enactment. Also, Josh, you didn’t spend your 5 Power to change my reputation.

Josh: he/they

13-11-2013 22:48:35 UTC

Fucks sake why isn’t changing reputations punative.

This is quite the administrative ballache you lot have saddled me with.


14-11-2013 01:38:35 UTC



14-11-2013 08:13:59 UTC



14-11-2013 23:09:09 UTC



14-11-2013 23:46:51 UTC

Kevan – I do appreciate that you encouraged me to propose this unreviewed and only exposed the fatal flaw after I had done so. Josh should make you President of Secret Intelligence.

Kevan: he/him

14-11-2013 23:53:46 UTC

Sorry, I didn’t read the draft. I certainly didn’t intend my comment on it to suggest that I had and that I couldn’t see any problems with the wording.

From the general lack of feedback they receive, I get the impression most players don’t read draft proposals - if you have finite playing time, it’s better spent reading and thinking about the posts that will actually affect the game and your own position in it.

Josh: he/they

14-11-2013 23:54:59 UTC

In fairness to Kevan, he has always been publicly, explicitly - and, in my view, correctly - averse to “protosals”.


15-11-2013 12:52:06 UTC

It’s okay. You’re justified in that position. But the coincidence is amusing.