Sunday, May 07, 2023

Proposal: Short Term Veep

Unpopular 3-7 after more than 48 hours. -Bucky

Adminned at 09 May 2023 04:21:01 UTC

If there is no “Victory Points” special case, add a new dynastic rule called “Points” with the following text:

Each City Architect has a publicly tracked number of Points, which defaults to 1 and cannot be negative. New players start with a number of Points equal to the number held by the City Architect (aside from themself) with the fourth most Points, or 1 if there are less than four other players.

No City Architect can gain more than five Points in a day; if they would, gained Points beyond the fifth don’t count.

If a majority of EVCs on this Proposal contain the phrase “early victory”, add the following to the end of the rule “Points” as a new paragraph:

A City Architect, the Top Scorer, has achieved victory if they have at least ten Points, and no three other Architects have at least as many combined Points as the Top Scorer has.

 

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

07-05-2023 04:25:17 UTC

I see what you’re trying to do, but it’s the same problem as before. We don’t know how “victory points” fit into the current dynastic vibe, if at all, so this feels forced and against the normal flow of a dynasty.

Granted, I have been on BlogNomic less than a year, but in my time so far, I’ve noticed that victory conditions introduced this early are always too soon, and I’ve come to understand that most people really do prefer for the WinCon to work itself out naturally through the process, whatever its flaws may be.

JonathanDark: he/him

07-05-2023 05:37:30 UTC

I realized that I had said “victory points”, but you can call them “points” or any other generic name, and they would have the same problem. It’s about the timing of when the WinCon concept is introduced, not the name of the WinCon resource needed to win.

SingularByte: he/him

07-05-2023 06:18:20 UTC

I’m with Jonathan on this one on the points feeling very sterile.

I wouldn’t necessarily object to an early victory condition on principle, but I’d want it to feel at least somewhat integrated into the theme.

JonathanDark: he/him

07-05-2023 15:14:39 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

07-05-2023 17:02:26 UTC

against Per others.

redtara: they/them

07-05-2023 17:41:47 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

07-05-2023 18:55:42 UTC

Oh, for Early Victory

Josh: Observer he/they

07-05-2023 19:12:03 UTC

for

Bucky:

07-05-2023 19:16:18 UTC

Explicit author for without the rider.

Snisbo: she/they

08-05-2023 00:17:55 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

08-05-2023 02:34:56 UTC

for early victory

SingularByte: he/him

08-05-2023 07:18:30 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

08-05-2023 07:19:53 UTC

It’s now possible for this to time out 4 votes to 3 and enact an early victory mechanism that only two people have so far explicitly said that they want, and which possibly nobody else does. Even if it gets a quorum of 8 FOR votes, it may enact a rule that only four people want.

“If a majority of EVCs on this Proposal…” sounds very classic and reasonable and official, but it is fundamentally about whether to let a clause get through with less than quorum, and is a bad (or slyly tactical) idea for a major rule change. (A slightly more functional version is “a quorum of EVCs”, but really two different questions needs two different proposals.)

Kevan: he/him

08-05-2023 07:21:46 UTC

Simultaneous comment! It’s now at 4-4.

And my mistake, 4-3 wouldn’t require two EVCs, I was parsing it as only applying to FOR votes - it would also need, and still needs, four EVCs.

But this is still a minority agreeing to a significant rule change.

redtara: they/them

08-05-2023 13:32:33 UTC

CoV against since I’m not interested in the points without the rider

jjm3x3: he/him

08-05-2023 16:01:43 UTC

against

summai:

08-05-2023 17:03:31 UTC

against