I agree with this up to a point, but I do like the generally sportsman-like atmosphere here on Blognomic (for example in the previous dynasty, we were all too polite at first to alter each other’s moon bases). On the other hand, I agree that a Traitor mechanic would be a fun addition to the game.

What if we made the Traitor mechanic which can be turned on or off by making a blog post stating so? Then when someone wins and becomes King, they can decide if they want it on or off for their new dynasty?

I think I’ll propose that when I get time.

Ah, no need, that’s already there: this is creating a Special Case rule, and “When a new dynasty is started, the Ascension Address may state any existing Special Case Rules that are set to inactive”. The Emperor also has the option of having it active but just never picking a Traitor.

I don’t think it’d affect the sportsmanship: if anything it might increase it, as players (both Traitor and non) try to look helpful and trustworthy. It should only really come into play when players are making backroom deals and warily deciding who should carry all the diamonds.

Ah I missed that rule you quoted, ah well, just ignore the proposal I made then hehe!

I feel like this could backfire. The psychology of knowing there could be an uninhibited traitor will likely lead to more traitor-proofing, i.e. making otherwise interesting traitor moves impossible, and slowing down the game in doing so, whilst the traitors may often find no advantage to take. I leave this to the more experienced players, who might more easily weigh this against the benefits of disuading otherwise fully trusting teamup plays.

Abstain with no vote.

I’m not so certain. Plenty of victories where people won by pooling were done so in between players already in the lead, who didn’t necessarily use mechanics of the game to trade resources.

So (to be clear) you are saying it is worth it if it keeps those lead players duking it out, rather than teaming up? (Or if they do team up, to have to do something to traitorproof it?)

[TyGuy6] It’s worth seeing what happens, but I don’t expect there’d be any countermeasures. The traitor’s only move is lying, which we can all do already (albeit tending more towards ambiguity or feigned ignorance), and which we rarely bother to legislate around.

In a secret information dynasty people will sometimes propose that the Emperor must privately confirm or deny facts, so that a private claim or rumour can be checked, but from memory these tend to be voted down by other players, probably because most players don’t have any information they need checking at that point and see no reason to help the proposer.

Conspiracy ending are common in blognomic in general. Making it harder to be betrayed usually makes it harder to conspire in the first place.

Straight coin-flip victories actually seem to be less common than it sometimes feels.

Just tweaked that list to cover two occasions in which two players collaborated to end the game and decided on a winner privately. I won the untamed wilds with some major assistance from card, who graciously let me claim victory (I offered him a 30% chance).

The wizard cities dynasty ended with a team play by card and Brendan. Brendan claimed victory, and then handed over the dynastic control to card, presumably because Brendan had a lot of dynasties already and card had none.