I’m going to be honest, I am interested in some of what the hidden variables were for this dynasty. Why can’t we just say that Josh can do whatever they want with the intel after the dynasty’s over?

Since it’s votelocked now,  . In particular, what ideologies people ended up with and who had adherants in which building are what I’m interested in. Nothing like who was allied with who.

[Trapdoorspyder] What Josh reveals at the end of the dynasty has a big impact on how and whether players share their Ideologies, which is one of the core mechanics right now. If Josh is going to reveal who Informed on whom, then collaboration becomes much safer (you can promise not to Inform on someone and later prove that you didn’t; and you can stop people Informing on you by threatening to punish them for it in future dynasties), to the point where we might as well throw the Informing rule away. If he isn’t then it isn’t.

If there are a few bits of data we’d like to see, there’s plenty of time to add an “except for” clause to this. For now, it’s hard to know how to best play the game without knowing what’s going to happen at the end of it.

@Kevan your point is totally valid. That’s why I also dislike the other end of this spectrum, where Josh reveals everything. Preventing any of it from being shared almost even gives Josh an unfair advantage, knowing who is trustworthy/untrustworthy. I will add a counterpoint to my own argument, though: this doesn’t prevent players from sharing what they did during the dynasty, so I guess they can reveal stuff at their own discretion.

I don’t really see the “gives Josh an unfair advantage” thing as being different from any other missed or private conversations. I wasn’t around for the last dynasty or its Discord chat, so anyone who learned anything about the character or tactical style of their fellow players during it has an advantage over me. We don’t insist on a summary for the benefit of all idle and future players.

FWIW I don’t conceive of betrayal as a game choice to be indicative of future behaviour; it depends on the extent to which it is a viable strategy in the context of the current ruleset. In a ruleset where betrayal is rewarded I would expect most players to betray; otherwise, not. I don’t think that this dynasty will add anything to my corpus of knowledge on other players that my experience of most of you over time hasn’t already given me.

(I do think that BN is, on the whole, lamentably betrayal-adverse, so the exception to the above is that if anyone pulls off a truly spectacular blindside then I’ll likely respect them a bit more.)