The “invasion” has left a bad taste in a lot of our mouths. I’d rather move onto something different rather than continue the idea.

This is an attempt to turn it from something people are upset about to something fun.

I understand the point, I’d just rather not go down that path

Fair enough. Do you see any issues with the proposal other than not liking the idea?

I’m still not happy about ending a dynasty without a victory clause. At least make a victory clause, group scam your way to victory, and then set up a new dynasty. The idea of just starting a new dynasty just because you want to leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

@Amnistar: It’s actually spelt “GNDT”. I like the idea, but you know that. In order for factions to always have leaders, I suggest that a faction leader can’t leave it without transferring the leadership to someone else.

@Clucky: BlogNomic is more active now than it’s been in ages, and many people here actually want to play. So I don’t see how the invasion is a bad thing, in that regard. If the invasion hasn’t made you want to play BlogNomic, then you shouldn’t really have an opinion about the theme, as it’ll be for others to enjoy. If it has, then how is it a bad thing?

Technically it wouldn’t have to be a new dynasty, we don’t have to repeal the rules.

Better for a faction leader to transfer or for leadership to be grabbable of no one OS leader?

I’d vote for this as it stands.

I’ll annoyingly reiterate my old point - with floors or set groups or something, there will be many situations where players will each start their own faction in order to be a leader. Perhaps forming or maintaining a faction requires a post or GNDT action with a certain number of players, or each groups must have a separate leader, vice-leader, and secretary. Perhaps my objection is unwarranted at this time and these ideas are better handled as proposals after this has passed. In it’s current form, however, factions may not arise heathily.

I see the initial flurry ccuring with lots of different factions forming, yes,  but I don’t think limiting the number of groups is the answer, or making it difficult to form a group.

I thin you hit it on the head with the second point. The roles option allows multiple ranks in a faction and new.rules could grant advantages to being in a large faction.

No doubt, the rules-based struggle will be a case of players in small factions trying to favour leaders, players in large factions trying to favour large factions. That could be quite interesting as proposal battles go.

Make sure that faction names are case insensitive, so that we don’t have people going to war over whether the N in BlogNomic should be capitalized.

Good catch DC

Also make “characters” and “letters” not be used interchangeably and change “of” to “or” in “A player’s Role can either be Member of Leader.”

Replace all instances of Artist within the ruleset with Player
Replace all instances of Critic within the ruleset with Emperor

Create a new dynastic rule “Factions” with the text:

Each player has a Faction which is a string of characters no more than 10 characters long tracked in the GNDT. At any time a player may change their Faction in the GDNT to any string of characters that no more than 10 characters long.  Factions are not case sensitive.

Whenever a player unidles or joins the game, set their faction to Blognomic.

Create a subrule of the rule Factions “Leaders” with the text:

Each player has a Role tracked in the GNDT. A player’s Role can either be Member or Leader.

If a player changes their Faction to a Faction that is currently held by no other active player, that player may change their role to Leader.

If a player changes their Faction to a Faction that is held any other active player, that player’s Role is changed to Member.

A Leader of a Faction may at any time transfer leadership of their Faction to another member of their Faction by changing their Role to Member and the player’s Role to Leader.
Whenever a player unidles or joins the game, set their Role to Member.

In the event that there exists a Faction that has no player with the Role of Leader, any Member of that Faction may change their role to Leader.

Set each active player’s Faction to Blognomic.
Set each active player’s Role to Member.

If a majority of all counted votes contain the phrase ‘We want an emperor’, Set Prince Anduril’s role to Leader.

If a majority of all counted votes contain the phrase ‘Fresh Start’, Repeal all Dynastic Rules.

If the proposal “Faction War” has failed, this proposal does nothing.
Create a new sub-rule of Leaders “Rank hath it’s privelage” with the text:

The Leader of a Faction may the proposals of and Member of their Faction.
If a votes :IMP: it will mimic the be counted the same as the Leader’s vote for their faction.
The Leader of a Faction may not achieve Victory.

updated and included is the seconary proposal I had in mind with leaders of factions becoming mini-emperors.

One more thing: perhaps we should change “If a majority of all counted votes contain the phrase ‘Fresh Start’, Repeal all Dynastic Rules.” to “If a majority of all counted votes contain the phrase ‘Fresh Start’, start a new dynasty and repeal all Dynastic Rules.”