What if more than two nations have the same DV?

Ah, missed the “alphabetical order” clause, sorry.

Alphabetical order is not perfect, perhaps someone has a better idea. However it should work.

CoV because I don’t think the alphabetical order clause actually does anything.

I really dislike the idea that the description does not reveal where an Agent’s allegiance is. I like the idea of allegiances being secret, not even known by those with same nationality description.

Seems like quite a bit of work for the D-Ops. Also, Blacky, there’s no need for you to vote on your own prop - the author’s vote is automatically FOR.

Somehow I wrote a double-negative above. That is confusing… I meant one of the following:
- I really like the idea that the description does not reveal where an Agent’s allegiance is.
- I really dislike the idea that the description reveals where an Agent’s allegiance is.

Dithering on this one, but on balance I think I’m against it, for Thane Q’s reason - there’s more of an espionage feel to things if private allegiances have nothing to do with a character’s country of origin. Some nice mechanics here, though, particularly the shifting strengths of the nations.

I also think the nation’s relative strenght is nice, and that it can change, but being assigned a random allegiance because of my random description… I don’t like it that much.

strength*
Sorry =P

Hm, what happens if “Red, White, and Blue” is not enacted, but this proposal has enough for votes to be enacted?

This proposal fails, if the proposal “Red, White and Blue” is not enacted.

So, admin starts to enact the proposal, and come to the quoted line. which means that they should fail the proposal, which means that they never come to the quoted line, which means that they enact the proposal…

It obviously couldn’t be enacted, since it’s own text specifies that it fails. So, if an Admin fails it, what should they put as the reason for failing? it wasn’t enacted, because it was failed, so the fact that it specifies that it should fail as part of it’s enactment is not valid.

I doubt it will come up, as RWnB is currently at 10-1, and this is at 2-9, but it is an interesting question, nonetheless.

(Blacky: the usual wording is “If [condition], this proposal does nothing.” Which means that the proposal is enacted, it just has no effect.)

Actually, I’m not sure “this proposal fails” is equivalent to “this proposal is failed.”  The Ruleset uses the passive form of the verb exclusively, from what I can see.  “Fails” might be just non-rule-affecting color text (like “this proposal is wonderful” or “this proposal grinds its teeth”).  Under that interpretation, the rule “Diplomatic Conundrum” would be created, but the search-replace part of the proposal would legally do nothing.

I think it would pass, then fail itself. It wouldn’t fail itself retroactively, so it wouldn’t create a temporal paradox.

Retroaction does tend to mess with space-time.

And many nomic’s player’s minds. =P

One of Fresh Nomic’s temporary deaths was caused by Ienpw III (who is also a Fresh Nomic player) getting a dictatorship, and when it turned out to be legal, he retroactively made it legal.

Er, turned out to be illegal, sorry.