Thursday, January 28, 2021

Proposal: Subversion Escalation, Take Two [Special Case]

self killed—clucky

Adminned at 29 Jan 2021 23:18:11 UTC

Create a new Special Case Rule, set to Active, entitled “Imperial Devolution*” with the following text:

The Player may not veto any Proposals do not include at least one of the following tags: [Core], [Special Case], [Appendix], [Victory]. If a Proposal would cause the game to become unplayable; would effectively amend or allow arbitrary amendment of a Core, Special Case, or Appendix rule; or would grant immediate victory to the enacting Admin; then, instead, the Player may and should veto that Proposal.

Delete the text in the rule “Treaties [Universal]” that reads “The Player should veto any proposal that would make an Emperor a Signatory to a Treaty against his will, or that would convert a Treaty into a Universal rule without the assent of all non-Signatory Emperors. Moreover,”

Add a new subrule to the rule “Treaties [Universal]” called “Treaty Limits [Universal]” that reads as follows:

A Proposal that creates or amends a Treaty is considered Unpopular, and is not considered Popular, so long as any of the following would be true of its effects upon enactment:

  • They would make an Emperor a Signatory to a Treaty without that Emperor’s consent.
  • They would convert a Treaty into a Universal rule.
  • They would add or remove Signatories from another Treaty, except as mediated by Universal rules.
  • They would restrict the actions of non-Signatories, beyond not being able to act as Signatories.
  • They would avoid the requirement that the Player always be a Signatory.
  • They would make substantial modifications to another Treaty, such that it effectively becomes a different Treaty.
  • They would enable arbitrary rules modifications.

However, the foregoing list of conditions excepts the following cases:

  • Subrules of a Treaty may affect the parent Treaty or other subrules of that Treaty.
  • Treaties may have terms specific to mutual Signatories with other Treaties—for example, by modifying variables defined in the other Treaty.
  • Treaties may declare the Player and other Signatories as second-class Signatories who may not take certain actions.

Addressing the concerns set forth in “Veto Conditions” as well as Kevan’s feedback on the first version of this proposal. I really do believe that Imperial Devolution is on theme for this dynasty; if all of us are Emperors but only one of us is a Player, doesn’t it follow that the traditional powers vested in a central figure should be less centrailzed?

Comments

Raven1207: he/they

28-01-2021 17:33:18 UTC

imperial

Raven1207: he/they

28-01-2021 17:33:30 UTC

Wait fuck

Raven1207: he/they

28-01-2021 17:33:56 UTC

I didn’t mean to vote early

Raven1207: he/they

28-01-2021 17:34:10 UTC

Hzjfzjfzjfzjfzjzffjzfjzzfjzjf

Bucky:

28-01-2021 17:39:28 UTC

Sigh. This is dynastic; Leave the Core alone.  against

Brendan: he/him

28-01-2021 18:08:52 UTC

To be absolutely clear: this is leaving Core alone. It creates a Special Case rule, not a Core rule, and indeed creates the first Special Case rule that is inactive by default. But it also provides precedent and opportunity for future dynasties to back up an imperial style with mechanical effects.

Kevan: City he/him

28-01-2021 18:26:10 UTC

against I like the idea of establishing a rough spirit for veto usage, but “may not veto” is far too strong a constraint on all future Emperors, who may well find themselves staring down some weird game-killing proposal (crafted by accident or design) which somehow doesn’t quite fit onto your list.

I appreciate that the rule is Inactive by default, but I’d expect most Emperors to read its tone as “this is how a decent Emperor behaves” and switch it on every time, that action being seen as a pledge that they’re voluntarily taking.

Darknight: he/him

28-01-2021 19:02:15 UTC

against

pokes:

28-01-2021 20:25:41 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

29-01-2021 18:07:08 UTC

against s/k, I’ll repropose again.