Just was thinking to propose something like that myself a hour ago, but with self chosen names. However, the list is even better.

Potina is probably doing quite well for herself in the 21st century.

Although I’m not sure the last part will work as intented due to Glossary rule 3.2.5:

“Within the ruleset, a word only refers to the name of a Divinity if it is explicitly stated that it refers to a Divinity’s name.”

The last part won’t work, indeed. But it’s easily fixable, or we can just rely on Alecto to keep his name as-is. (On another note, we don’t seem to have the G-Man rule this dynasty; shouldn’t Alecto be playing along with everyone else, at least up to the point he or someone else enacts that rule if it’s found to be necessary or useful?)

(Note to new players: “G-Man” = “Emperor-equivalent isn’t a player-equivalent for the purpose of other dynastic rules”.)

I hereby reserve the name “Sors”. (Please)

Though thanks to http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ruleset#Names the last sentence will need to be changed a bit.

What is the problem with the glossary name definition?
I’m a very new player (to nomics in general and to BlogNomic in particular), but I’d think it is unusual to have “personalised” rules within the ruleset. The way I see it, as long as no rules mention a Divinity by name, there is no problem ...

CfJ perhaps? :-)

@foo-quux: It was originally to prevent a player registering with a name like, let’s say, CallForJudgement, and then claiming the ruleset was actually talking about them, rather than what it was meant to say. (It used to be that you automatically won if you managed to become the dynasty’s Emperor-equivalent, Imperatrix this dynasty; and someone simply changed their name to that dynasty’s Emperor-equivalent. I can’t remember if that scam actually worked, but it’s fixed two ways nowadays; by preventing players changing their names without a proposal, and by preventing player names from being referenced in the ruleset unless it specifically says it’s referencing a player name.)

@foo-quux: The last sentence will have to be changed to “The Divinity named Alecto [...]” rather than just “Alecto [...]”.

For the record, we created it when a player joined with the name “There”.

I see: short of killing each other (if the rules do not explicitly forbid it) anything goes :-)

=== nomic sinking in ===

Thanks @ais

[ais523] There was Bucky changing his name to ‘Captain’ in the pirate dynasty, which had a genuine mechanic for passing on the Captaincy role, and a victory condition that triggered if you’d been “Captain” for 72 hours. (I’m not sure you could ever win by merely becoming the Emperor-equivalent.)

Oddly, special name markup was actually discussed at the time, but wasn’t proposed until the arrival of the player called “There”.

(I’d like to reserve the Old Name “Subrincinator”)

[Greytyphoon] You’ll be lucky.

Buddhagazelle: Now I want to take Saritor just to one-up you.

Brendan: What, you want the weed AND the hoes?  Go for it.

...

I can’t decide which meaning to pick from that phrase. =P

Ok, to one-up you guys, I’d have to be:

Lactans/Picus/Vacuna - God/God/Goddess of Agriculture. That more than both of you combined - ok, you already overlap, hush - plus Obarator, Occator.

Messor - Even better: all that, plus mowing. Take that.

Terra Mater - Forget mowing. Mother Earth. The whole thing. =P

Fauna - Goddess of the Earth, Mother Goddess. That’s another one-up.

Or I could be Roma: goddess of a freaking city. As long as Angerona is with me (and Cloacina keeps doing her stuff), we would pretty much rule.

Also: Stimula. Lol.

I found a cool name! Can I please reserve: [Aeternitas]

Roujo: Pick one thing, and do it well.

Same list I was looking at.  And I think it’s great if I don’t have to think out any proposal wording!

Same list I was looking at.  And I think it’s great if I don’t have to think out any proposal wording!

Dibs on Necessitas.

Can I be Fama?