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.

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.

Perfectly understandable, thanks for explaining.

Seems okay to me.

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?

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.

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.

(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.)

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.

COV

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.