Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Proposal: The Mediator is Not Always Trusted

Cannot be Enacted after 48 hours (1-5). -Bucky

Adminned at 20 Feb 2015 05:18:47 UTC

Remove from the ruleset the text

Should the Mediator vote FOR a Demand or Trial that succeeds or passes, or AGAINST a Demand or Trial that fails, their Clearance is increased by x, where x is the number of EVCs of DEFERENTIAL on that Demand or Trial. Should the Mediator vote AGAINST a Demand or Trial that succeeds or passes, or FOR a Demand or Trial that fails, their Clearance is decreased by x in the same way.

As much as I’m entertained by ais giving Josh more and more clearance, I dislike strategic voting, which this rule encourages. Our votes should be a public statements of our beliefs, not a method of winning.



18-02-2015 03:26:52 UTC

I doubt ais523 has been voting with the purpose of giving Josh more Clearance. If anything, he’s been voting that way despite his belief that Josh is an Android and therefore his votes being less utilitarian for him.


18-02-2015 03:32:46 UTC

When I said that, I didn’t see the recent Ghosts demand where ais523 changed his vote to Deferential… confused as to what to make of that.


18-02-2015 03:38:11 UTC

The first two times were to see if Josh would avoid the Clearance bump, which he could have done easily both times. So it wasn’t so much “giving Josh Clearance” as “seeing if Josh is seeking to gain Clearance”, as a method of determining which faction he’s on.

The third time was a joke. I may well change it back again (and will if the proposal looks like it’s in any danger of passing).


18-02-2015 04:16:32 UTC

I can accept that ais523.


18-02-2015 05:20:45 UTC

against Unlike Sylphrena, I actually like strategic voting. Especially in a dynasty such as this one, where we’re meant to figure out information based on how people act.

I’ve been thinking about what I’d do as a followup to this dynasty if I won this one. It’s difficult, because this dynasty seems to be hitting all the things I was considering using as themes: it has some sort of an economy, factions, behind-the-scenes teamwork, and the most tactical voting and proposing that I’ve seen outside a metadynasty.

I guess the main disadvantage of this theme is that it encourages a large number of DEFERENTIALs from the Emperor, because the vast majority of proposals are attempts at personal gain rather than an attempt to improve the ruleset. One of the unique features of BlogNomic is that the Emperor tends to shape a dynasty “naturally”, but Kevan couldn’t do that in this dynasty without being biased towards one side or the other.

The other problem is that BlogNomic is a winner-takes-all game, a playstyle which really isn’t suited to this dynasty theme, and I think it’s showing.


18-02-2015 07:05:10 UTC

Next time we do a faction-based dynasty, perhaps there should be some rule created for randomly selecting the winner from the winning faction. Although this would minimize cross-factional alliances…

Josh: he/they

18-02-2015 08:00:09 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

18-02-2015 08:09:43 UTC


Darknight: he/him

18-02-2015 15:53:17 UTC



19-02-2015 01:47:15 UTC


Brendan: he/him

19-02-2015 20:58:59 UTC

against to keep things moving.


20-02-2015 01:22:53 UTC

against per Brendan (quorum-1)