Tuesday, February 04, 2025

Proposal: Roly poly

Vetoed by the Monarchple. Adminned by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 06 Feb 2025 18:49:44 UTC

Add a new role to the list of roles in the rule The Crew {M}:

Grifter is a Role. As a Weekly Heist Action, a Grifter may add a suffix or prefix to a word in the ruleset, so long as the resulting word is not Gibberish.

Comments

ais523:

04-02-2025 20:48:45 UTC

This is extremely powerful (especially given that “non” is a prefix that can be applied to almost any word). I’m not sure if that’s enough to vote against, but it is probably enough to give a weekly restriction.

JonathanDark: he/him

04-02-2025 20:52:39 UTC

An alternative would be to make an explicit list of allowed suffixes and prefixes. Not sure if that’s desired.

Brendan: he/him

05-02-2025 04:28:25 UTC

against I think this would give anyone assigned the role—most likely at random—a huge acceleration toward victory.

JonathanDark: he/him

05-02-2025 05:42:41 UTC

It’s a shame Josh didn’t get a chance to alter it. There was potential, but it’s too powerful as-is.

against

SingularByte: he/him

05-02-2025 06:26:24 UTC

against

Josh: he/they

05-02-2025 07:33:31 UTC

I’m not sure I see the power. It’s a weekly action - it would be so hard to get it to a position where it can only help the user enough to effect a win.

ais523:

05-02-2025 09:09:52 UTC

Well, it can make itself a nonweekly action trivially – that’s an example of the sort of power it has.

Josh: he/they

05-02-2025 09:31:51 UTC

What would nonweekly even mean? In this context, probably that you couldn’t carry it our during a week - I think that would break it rather than unleasing it.

ais523:

05-02-2025 09:48:35 UTC

@Josh: At BlogNomic, a “weekly action” is defined as an action that is limited to one use per week – thus by analogy, a “nonweekly action” is one that isn’t limited to one use per week.

Compare “nondynastic”, which means “not dynastic”, not “cannot be done during a dynasty” or “is not associated with a dynasty”. This matters for the Dynastic Safeguard rule, which is not a dynastic rule but which is specific to this dynasty; it safeguards “non-dynastic rules”, a restriction which to me clearly includes itself.

ais523:

05-02-2025 09:50:20 UTC

(Even if you don’t agree with this argument, though, essentially the same break is possible by changing the word to “semiweekly”, which is unambiguous.)

Josh: he/they

05-02-2025 10:18:23 UTC

I don’t buy that argument, and I don’t really mind semiweekly either.

I think that this rule is much easier to break than it is to superpower, and any attempt to superpower it still has to deal with the Heist Actions limitation, so if someone was pinning their entire run on it then it would get broken well before it paid off.

Raven1207: Monarchple he/they

05-02-2025 13:01:53 UTC

against

Snisbo: she/they

05-02-2025 20:39:06 UTC

for

ais523:

06-02-2025 13:03:51 UTC

against Despite the power, I was nonetheless considering enacting this, but it doesn’t make sense to enact it now that the dynasty has ended.

Raven1207: Monarchple he/they

06-02-2025 15:25:00 UTC

veto