Thursday, November 03, 2016

Proposal: Twelve Times Twelve Midnight

Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 1-4 by Kevan.

Adminned at 04 Nov 2016 19:36:39 UTC

Create a new rule called “Doomsday Clock” as follows:

If the current date is December 1st, 2016, or later, the Emperor may and should delete all rules in the Ruleset except “Ruleset and Gamestate” and replace its text with the following text, run through a rot13 transformation:

Guvf vf gur Ehyrfrg sbe OybtAbzvp, juvpu tbireaf gur Tnzrfgngr bs OybtAbzvp. Arvgure znl or nygrerq. Gurer ner ab Cynlref. OybtAbzvp unf raqrq.

Translated: “This is the Ruleset for BlogNomic, which governs the Gamestate of BlogNomic. Neither may be altered. There are no Players. BlogNomic has ended.”


Kevan: HE/HIM

11-03-2016 19:19:44 UTC

Note: Nice big stakes here, but having those words indented in the ruleset (where text being indented means nothing in particular) could be argued as being simply the second paragraph of the rule, in addition to being some text to copy later on, and taking effect as soon as it hits the ruleset.

Would be safer if the replacement text itself was off on a wiki page, or perhaps chiselled into a block of granite somewhere.

Brendan: HE/HIM

11-03-2016 19:41:52 UTC

Note: aha. Updated.

Kevan: HE/HIM

11-03-2016 19:43:02 UTC

for Very good.


11-04-2016 01:42:42 UTC

Let history show that I voted against BlogNomic self-destruction.


11-04-2016 03:45:03 UTC

I hate to vote against the first proposal of a dynasty, but it’s against for me also. If it were only a temporary shutdown then perhaps I would reconsider my vote; but as they say: forever is a long time.


11-04-2016 07:25:06 UTC

Is this an intentional intent to bait Agora into invading? They seem to be interpreting it as one.

As I’m one of the few Agorans who has a long history at BlogNomic (including several dynasties), I thought I’d come over here and warn of the potential consequences of adopting the rule (and, if necessary, to unidle and vote AGAINST). (Disclaimer: Agora no longer has the position of Ambassador; anyone who remembers me as being an ambassador from Agora, that’s no longer the case, and I’m doing this entirely on my own initiative after seeing the conversation there.)

I’d also like to add that after a lull of many months, Agora is just now starting to become more active again, and has had a huge flurry of proposals lately. It’s not a disaster for a nomic to become idle / placed on hold for a while. It’s rather more of a disaster for a nomic as long-standing as BlogNomic to end; nomic generally is in decline, and a nomic as well-designed as this one should likely be kept around.

Kevan: HE/HIM

11-04-2016 10:01:55 UTC

Thanks for being ambassadorial. If we ever thought it’d be fun for players from another Nomic to invade, rest assured we would write that on a flag and stick it in the ruleset.

I don’t know Brendan’s exact motives, but I just read this as a great piece of storytelling, and to possibly be a bit of a self-referential round where we draw on elements of past dynasties to save the future. Mechanically I assumed it would be some sort of co-op dynasty against the Emperor, with very high stakes to wake people up and keep them focused, and to maybe draw some of the older players back for one last heist. I liked it, but I can see how it could worry other players.

against CoV with two players being concerned. I think Gazebo Dude’s temporary shutdown would be an equally interesting stake.

Brendan: HE/HIM

11-04-2016 14:35:08 UTC

To be clear: my actual goal is to put Blognomic at a REAL RISK of ending, but not to make it a foregone conclusion. I’m writing another proposal now as a mechanism to stave it off if we get enough interest and activity in the dynasty. Kevan’s assessment is pretty spot-on.


11-04-2016 16:13:04 UTC

The high stakes look interesting, but I’m a bit worried about the risk of scams. Normally, the worst outcome of a badly-worded rule would be the Dynasty ending early, but here a bad enough scam could shut everything down.

It might be that something like this is very unlikely (since we are only worried about breaking a single rule), but I’m not sure yet. No vote for now, I have to think about this some more.


11-04-2016 18:21:26 UTC

against , but would vote for If clear mechanisms of rescuing are defined