Still disagree with this formulation.  I think it should be ok, if this dynasty dies down, to end it quickly with a clause, like, “The Hon. member with the greatest Credibility achieves victory”.  Effectively, this could have been any Hon. Member—but it just so happnes that (ftm) Spitemaster would be the one to fulfill this.

Whatever formulation works. I defer to popular judgement.

Blocking individual scams is important work, but disallowing a whole category of scam seems self-defeating - this is a Nomic, ruleset scams are a valid tool in the arsenal. It’s specifically contrary to the stated aims of this dynasty, and also runs counter to the last week or so of the game, which has frankly been as much fun as I’ve had with BlogNomic in a long while.

Josh:

I agree it was fun - for a bit, until it was overused.  Now we need something else, though I’m not sure what.

nqeron - sure, patch the individual loopholes, but blocking off a whole section of play seems like a nose / face situation.

Josh - hence my opposition to this rule.  Plus, there are other possible scams, even if this passes.

Oh good. Essentially we are in violent agreement :)

Apart from the objections noted above, “1 nanosecond after the proposal entitled ‘Suck it, I’m having this sandwich’ was enacted, the Honourable Member called Purplebeard achieves victory.”

Purplebeard: You raise an interesting point. That means there is theoretically an uncountably infinite family of proposals that would have exactly this problem. and Self-Killed because this would not have the intended effect.

However, I’m seeing more and more problems with the idea of Political Capital (which is why, in general, I tend to be opposed to the idea of extra votes). We may need to look into that a little bit, such as a limit on how much PC can be spent on a given Proposal.

So one more vote can kill this quickly.

Am I the only one who thinks someone forcing through a proposal with PC would be an appropriate end to the dynasty?

I’d assume, considering there exists an obvious counter- Deliberations aren’t subject to any bribes.

Deliberations can be PC’d: “Whenever an Honourable Member casts a vote on a votable matter other than a CfJ, they may spend any quantity of Political Capital.”

They can, but it doesn’t do anything: “When a proposal is resolved, its eligibility for resolution (i.e. whether or not the number of votes cast equal or exceed quorum) is calculated ignoring Political Capital. However, any Political Capital attached to an EVC is added to the counts FOR and AGAINST for the purposes of determining whether or not the proposal has passed or failed. No proposal may pass if only one player has an EVC FOR, regardless of the amount of political capital appended to EVCs on that proposal.”

Ah…