Tuesday, August 03, 2021

Proposal: Simpler turns

Failed by Take Two!—Clucky

Adminned at 07 Aug 2021 03:37:36 UTC

If there is a dynastic rule “Turns”, replace its text with the following; otherwise, create a dynastic rule “Turns” with the following text:

The Turn Order is a publicly tracked ordered list of Generals and Leaders, without duplicates. When a General or Leader is idled, they are removed from the Turn Order.

A General or Leader is considered to be “Ready” if they are in the front half of the Turn Order (rounded down), except that Generals cannot be Ready unless there is a Leader somewhere behind them in the Turn Order (not necessarily immediately behind them). If an action is defined to be a “Turn Action”, this means that it can only be performed by Generals and Leaders who are Ready. When a General or Leader performs a Turn Action, they are moved to the back of the Turn Order.

If a General or Leader is not in the Turn Order, they may add themself to the front of the Turn Order. If a General or Leader has neither performed a Turn Action in the previous 72 hours, nor been added to the Turn Order in the previous 72 hours, any General or Leader may remove them from the Turn Order.

Initialise the Turn Order to a list of all Leaders in random order, followed by a list of all Generals in random order.

This should be mostly equivalent to Clucky’s proposal, but it’ll be much easier at a glance to see who can act and who can’t – one advantage of using a wiki rather than a GNDT is that not everything needs to be a table. Thanks to Clucky for having the original idea.

There’s one major difference: Leaders don’t get to perform unlimited actions any more. If the dynasty is meant to be “everyone versus lemonfanta”, it’s probably a bad idea to give her as many actions as she wants.

There’s also one minor difference: you can’t take two actions in a row unless a Leader has acted in between. This is to prevent a small conspiracy of players taking unlimited actions before lemonfanta can respond; again, if the dynasty is meant to be everyone versus lemonfanta, it’s probably a bad idea to give the “everyone” team as many actions as they want, too.


Trapdoorspyder: he/him

03-08-2021 13:54:11 UTC

As far as I can tell it looks good. However, a big difference between this proposal and Clucky’s is that there is not a time-based requirement for waiting in-between turns. That means that theoretically, a handful of people (assuming one of them is a leader) could get together and take a large number of actions before another person, who might have been asleep at the time, can even take one. However, it might have been your intent for the leader requirement to take the place of the 12-hours-in-between-turns thing, so I won’t use whether or not you take my suggestion as a basis on whether or not to vote on this.


03-08-2021 14:09:08 UTC

Right, I changed the restriction against performing repeated actions to something that fits the pace that the Leaders want to play at.

I’m generally very sceptical of time-based lockouts, as they tend to make it an advantage to wake up at weird times of day and spend a large proportion of your attention on BlogNomic, and I’m pretty worn out from doing that from last dynasty.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

03-08-2021 14:28:18 UTC

Perfectly understandable, thanks for explaining.

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 15:17:32 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

03-08-2021 15:20:28 UTC

for Seems okay to me.

Raven1207: he/they

03-08-2021 16:07:39 UTC


Janet: she/her

03-08-2021 18:40:23 UTC


Trapdoorspyder: he/him

03-08-2021 19:29:03 UTC


Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 20:11:32 UTC

This would literally allow theoretically infinite moves to be fired off while someone sleeps. People who align their timezones with Jumble and Lemon could get multiple moves in, while someone like Kevan who isn’t online with much overlap with Lemon would be able to make far fewer moves.

How is that healthy for the game?

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 20:14:17 UTC

also this means if a leader goes AWOL the game slows to crawl where everyone can move at most once every 72 hours as there would be no way for the other Leader to ever move.


03-08-2021 20:19:19 UTC

Leaders can move regardless of whether the other Leader is behind them – that restriction only applies to Generals. It’s also probably a good thing to slow down the game if the Leaders aren’t here (to wait for them to come back), given the idea behind the dynasty; one move per 72 hours isn’t a disaster, especially in cases where the Leaders can’t keep up.

Is there a scam in your version of the proposal? You made an unexplained AGAINST, followed by some arguments against later on when the proposal seems to be becoming popular – when I do that, it’s usually because I’m looking to preserve the status quo for tactical reasons, and it’s making me wonder whether you’re doing the same here.


03-08-2021 20:20:51 UTC

(And I have enough trust in the Leaders not to try to make rapid moves while someone is asleep and everyone else is active, locking them out of the game as a consequence – although in practice I doubt this will be an issue, because I suspect it’ll take much longer than 12 hours for half the player lit to move.)

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 20:37:24 UTC

ais is now actively lying about how my proposal works in order to try and get his version through

seems to make it pretty clear to me the whole “scam” stuff is probably just projection on his end.

Raven1207: he/they

03-08-2021 20:38:45 UTC

COV against

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 20:42:21 UTC

also leaders not needing to wait for the other leader to move makes the problem even worse, as it allows for a single active leader and enough active players to all get several turns in while the other leader (and potentially others in their timezone) are offline.


03-08-2021 20:55:29 UTC

Where, of course, “a single active leader and enough active players” is a conspiracy involving half the portion of the player list that’s taking actions, plus an Emperor. (In cases where most players are taking actions, a conspiracy of that size could just force through a CFJ instead, if it wanted.)

If there are problems with this, the leaders could trivially stop it by simply just not taking actions. Meanwhile, in the same scenario, your version of the proposal gives a disadvantage to everyone who can’t be online every 12 hours, and gives the leaders no control to slow down the game – indeed, if lemonfanta is going to serve as the opponent to everyone else cooperating, it forces lemonfanta to be online every 12 hours in order to avoid falling behind. (As of this message, she’s been offline for a little over 12 hours, so I don’t think she’s capable of keeping the pace you seem to want her to be able to keep.)

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 21:07:22 UTC

first off, if simply making the most number of moves means you have an advantage, I think you’ve done something wrong especially when this is supposed to be an “everyone vs lemon” game not “everyone for themself”

secondly, I intentionally gave the leaders unlimited moves not restricted by time so that they can freely set stuff up. even if they can only do that one per day, they should be fine.

lastly, the usage patterns here really show to me that its not going to be active that we’re cycling the queue once every 12 hours. Sometimes maybe an active person would get in two moves a day. But often times it would probably just be one if that.

seems far preferable to me than simply letting lemon and jumble control the queue speed and feel obligated to make moves in order to let people go again or not make moves in order to slow things down without any clear indication of when they should do what.


03-08-2021 21:11:20 UTC

I agree with your first and third paragraphs above; they’re arguments I’ve been using myself.

For your second paragraph, I don’t believe an “everyone versus lemon” dynasty can work if lemon can just do whatever she wants whenever; there would be no actual way to win unless she decides to lose intentionally.

Clucky: he/him

03-08-2021 21:16:12 UTC

good thing we’re building a nomic and so can write other rules that put limitations on what the leaders can and cannot do.


03-08-2021 21:27:58 UTC

Indeed, but your version of “turn action” is equivalent to “action” for the leaders – it’s more sensible to have a definition that works for everyone, so that we can decide whether to use it or not, than to have a definition that doesn’t work for some people and then need to use yet another limitation mechanism when the leaders are involved.


03-08-2021 23:29:49 UTC



06-08-2021 17:14:34 UTC

against s/k

After thinking about it for a while, I think that making the pace of play go too fast is probably a mistake, and this proposal seems likely to do that – I’d prefer a system that can be slower.