Friday, November 08, 2013

Proposal: Rile The Populace

Vetoed and paid for. -Bucky

Adminned at 10 Nov 2013 09:53:14 UTC

If the Proposal “With Numbers Comes Power” failed, create a new Rule entitled Sedition.
Replace the body of the Rule “Sedition” with the following:

As a Weekly Communal Action, any Oligarch can increase the Power of every Seditious Oligarch by one-and-a-half times the number of Seditious Oligarchs, rounded down, plus one.

Less grindy than Larrytheturtle’s Proposal, and balanced fairly well against the Loyalists’ flat 10-per-week.


RaichuKFM: she/her

08-11-2013 19:32:48 UTC

The growth curve is as follows for those who don’t want to bother calculating it themselves(Starting with 1 Seditious fellow, then two, then three, and so on): 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, etcetera.


08-11-2013 20:00:38 UTC


Josh: he/they

08-11-2013 20:25:18 UTC

veto Seditious Oligarchs get no power on my watch.

Josh: he/they

08-11-2013 20:25:18 UTC

veto Seditious Oligarchs get no power on my watch.

Kevan: he/him

08-11-2013 22:41:22 UTC

An informal manifesto of mechanics that you will always veto in character might be a good thing to have here.

Josh: he/they

09-11-2013 01:26:22 UTC

In a dynasty whose theme is almost explicitly about the arbitrary misuse of power?

Certainly the idea is that I act to protect and extend my power as much as possible, though, so proposals that directly attack my powers or embolden Seditious behaviour are more likely to get a veto. At this stage in the game, while my power is relatively great, it would be weird if being Seditious was anything other than a disadvantage. I expect that it will become less so as my ability to prevent rules from passing decreases.

That’s a slightly glib answer but I suppose I actually am setting myself up as a framing mechanism or a vaguely hostile environmental effect. It’s not a dynasty about taking me down, because my power can only decrease; it’s a dynasty about being on top when it finally runs out.