BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

But could he not alter the rules for how CfJ work, so that this is meaningless?

he could, but this can be passed as soon as a quorum of votes are FOR

Just one more thought - If he did include his Dictator monster in an encounter, would this whole process be legal?

Then would all we be able to do to do in that situation would be to kill the monster to strip him of his powers?

Since the CfJ claims that the dictator powers are illegal, they shouldn’t be taken into consideration for anything involving this CfJ.  We are all playing a game here, and DC has dictator powers within that game only if we agree that e does.  Any activity such as deleting this post or closing the comments by DC will be treated very harshly by the blognomic admins.

I can’t condone a CfJ which would purport to remove what I see to be a completely legitimate dictatorship. The only actual grounds it has for purporting the dictatorship’s illegality is the fact that the monster’s rulestext was not associated with the monster, but the merest fact that it is in that monster’s entry in the table indicates some association.

The arguments for the good of the game are separate, and I would consider them, however, with the primary reasoning for this being the purported illegality of the dictatorship, I cannot support.

For the same reason, I do not believe that Hix’ approach of suggesting that we ignore the dictatorship because it does not mesh well with the view that the dictatorship sucks overrules the basic spirit of Nomic. While it is true that, in general, the reality of a Nomic is the reality which everyone agrees too, we cannot simply decide to agree to a new reality just because we don’t like it. It is common in rules of procedure to have a ‘unanimous consent’ clause stating that if every member present agrees to something, that may be effected without regard to the rules and procedures. Nomics typically do not have the same, except for explicitly. In Nomic, rule of law is absolutely paramount, and many players of Nomic, myself included, would rather start up a new Nomic with a game state conspicuously similar to a deceased Nomic than agree to override the rules and continue playing a game that died.

for obvious reasons, and per coppro.

Actually, per coppro.

Also, even if I agreed with this, I’d be against because of part 4; it should instead remove the clauses allowing me to add monsters and potions without a proposal, and maybe dethrone me from Emperorhood.

To clarify:  I am not suggesting “that we ignore the dictatorship because it does not mesh well with the view that the dictatorship sucks”.

What I mean is that if you consider a change in the ruleset to be illegal, you shouldn’t be forced to play by the ‘illegal’ ruleset until the relevant CfJ is resolved.  And if you feel really strongly that the game could become messed up with DC as a dictator, you are free to “pretend” that you consider it illegal, so that the CfJ is allowed to exist untouched by the dictator powers.

Per coppro. This dictatorship might not be bad, depending on how Darth deals with it.

Oopsies. Not active.

Legality-wise.

Suppose there was a M:TG creature reading “Players may cast spells from the graveyard.” Though the text may not directly refer to the creature itself, it still makes sense. Simularly, a monster with the special effects “The RNG may edit the ruleset in any way, at any time.” still makes sense, even if we don’t like it.

As for the actual issue:

I - Blognomic is not dying.

Most dynasties lose about half their players after a few weeks in, as the less interested fade away. I’d consider a quorum of 5+ normal for a dynasty at this point in its lifespan. The moment the dynasty ends, it usually shoots back up to regular levels.

The solution is to make dynasties that are fun to play or, better yet, end within a natural amount of time. I find two weeks to a month to be the sweet spot.

(We really should have some kind of dynasty theory page on the wiki.)

II - On dictatorships in general

I used to be anti-dictatorships of all kinds, but I’ve softened in recent years. GM-style dictatorships can be fun. Nevertheless, a dictatorship should be proposed clearly as a dictatorship, and be properly limited.

We also need a reminder somewhere that allowing arbitrary text into the ruleset has without fail led to this kind of thing.

III - On this dictatorship

People play games when they are fun. If you make this game unfun, people are going to stop playing it. I can’t help but agree with Josh. If BlogNomic is dying, then things like this are the cause.

People play Nomic for its freedom. And if you take that away, who will want to play? Sad as it may be to lose our history, we can, and if necessary will, start a BlogNomic 2.

IV - Resolution

Darth Cliche, if you have any hope of continuing the game, let alone this dynasty, undo your actions, or at the very least set limits on yourself.

I really want to vote FOR this, but as with coppro I can’t agree with the logic. I intend to create an alternate CfJ soon.

Discussion from IRC:

<Bucky> The logic behind the CfJ is that the monster’s special ability doesn’t have any effect
<Bucky> until the monster actually exists
<Bucky> He didn’t bother to make an Encounter containing one before changing the ruleset
<Bucky> Even M:TG doesn’t have creature text that takes effect from outside the game
<Rodney> Suppose we had a monster that said “If any dice in a demon’s attack is 6, this monster joins the Encounter.”
<Rodney> On further thought, I’d dispute the lawfulness of the above demon-example anyway.
<Rodney> It would be bad form, at least.
<Rodney> A much better version would be “Should this monster roll DICE6, summon a demon.”

I’d say that editing the rules just to prove that one can (and the actual legality of the dictatorship seems questionable to me so far), even with a noble agenda, is in poor taste.

Idle For.

I would also point out that regardless of any concerns of the specific legality of his approach, the subjective nature of Rule 1.10’s “Unplayability” clause genuinely applies to otherwise legal actions which are contrary to the functioning of the game.

@Bucky’s Part 2: Who else voted against, based on your logic? :p

Even if DC’s actions were legal (which they don’t appear to be), we are fully allowed to repeal them via CfJ. It’s been done before, it will be done again. What was it that arthexis did that broke the game that one time? It wasn’t too long ago, but we had to repeal it, and fast.

Honestly, this Dynasty is going pretty good, idk why DC needed to drop a bomb on it at this point in time. Classic Darth Cliche, lol

@Bucky in Rodney’s IRC discussion: Relentless Rats