Sunday, February 21, 2021

Proposal: Votes and Power

Popular, 9-0. Josh

Adminned at 22 Feb 2021 09:32:18 UTC

In the rule Victory and Ascension, remove the text “This rule cannot be overruled by Dynastic Rules as it relates to Declarations of Victory, but it can be overruled in other matters.”

Add a new dynastic rule to the ruleset, called The Elective Monarchy:

During the Fourteenth Dynasty of Josh, the rule Victory and Ascension has no effect. The Electors, as a singular collective entity, have achieved Victory.

Each Elector has a score for Political Power, which is a non-negative integer that defaults to 10 and which is privately tracked by the Doge. They also have a Political Heft, which is their Political Power expressed as a percentage of the sum of the Political Powers of all Electors.

At any time, any Elector may post a Declaration of Victory (DoV). While it is open, every Elector may cast Votes on that DoV to indicate support or oppsition. The Doge may only cast a vote of FOR on a DoV, and may only cast such a vote if the sum of the Political Hefts of all Electors whose EVC on that DoV is FOR is over 50%.

A pending DoV may be enacted by any admin if the Doge has voted FOR it.

A pending DoV may be failed by any admin if 24 hours have elapsed since it was posted and the Doge has not voted FOR it.

If a DoV is Failed, the Elector who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 72 hours (3 days) have passed since the time their DoV was Failed, and that Elector and any Elector who voted FOR it lose 1 Political Power.

When a DoV is Enacted, all other pending DoVs are Failed, and a new Dynasty begins in which the Elector who made the DoV becomes the Doge.

The new Doge will make an Ascension Address by posting an entry in the “Ascension Address” category. This should specify the Doge’s chosen theme for the new Dynasty, and it may optionally specify that the terms “Elector” and “Doge” will be replaced with theme-specific terms throughout the entire Ruleset (where the replacement terms are different, and neither includes any words in a form in which they already appear in the non-dynastic Ruleset), and/or list a number of dynastic rules to keep. When such an Ascension Address is posted, the Ruleset is updated to reflect any changed terms, and any dynastic rules which were not listed to be kept are repealed. Between the enactment of the DoV and the posting of the Ascension Address, no new DoV may be made and BlogNomic is on Hiatus.

Before an Ascension Address has been posted for a new Dynasty, the Doge may pass the role of Doge to another Elector by making a post to that effect.

When an Ascension Address has been posted, the Elector who is making the changes specified within it to the ruleset must also add the following text to the end of the rule Victory and Ascension: “This rule cannot be overruled by Dynastic Rules as it relates to Declarations of Victory, but it can be overruled in other matters.”



21-02-2021 15:20:26 UTC

Doesn’t this need the Core tag

Kevan: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 15:22:47 UTC

No, we added a couple of “we know what you meant” clauses to the Tag system a while ago. And they almost always work.


21-02-2021 15:36:40 UTC

Do we need to muck with Core vs. making a new category of dynastic official post to play the role of DoVs here?


21-02-2021 15:42:40 UTC

@pokes The extent to which this changes the first half of V&A is significant, and it’s the bit of the rule that V&A as written specifically prohibits dynastic rules from overriding.


21-02-2021 16:30:12 UTC

It still makes me nervous to rewrite V&A given that, unless I misunderstand, can’t most of this functionality be dynastic? The first half of this rule could be, say, a dynastic DoV which grants the poster victory when enacted, and then the rest of the machinery is unneeded?


21-02-2021 16:33:12 UTC

Oh, this shouldn’t be rewriting V&A? Except removing the final line, which I honestly think is redundant anyway.

I think I might be misunderstanding your objection. Are you not sure about reproducing part of the core rules in dynastic because if redundancy? Because this shouldn’t be making any changes to core besides getting rid of that one line in V&A, which is purely enabling.


21-02-2021 17:02:22 UTC



21-02-2021 17:27:18 UTC


Clucky: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 17:38:05 UTC

Is the idea that the Doge can intentionally not vote on a DoV, and then the person in question, even though they should’ve won, is locked out for three days intentional? I’m a bit worried about that.

Kevan: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 17:46:52 UTC

Not a great fan of the trend for messing around with Core, which we ended up getting wrong last dynasty (and still need to restore the “Player” synonym clause we deleted), but up to Josh here.


Brendan: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 17:48:23 UTC

imperial Surely, fair citizens, we must trust in the wisdom of our late Doge, may he rest in peace.


21-02-2021 17:52:25 UTC

@Clucky That’s fair. If you want to amend it to have more heft then I’m open to that.

@Kevan I’m inclined to say that if the end result of this is that the line from V&A doesn’t get restored then that’s fine; it seems superfluous to me anyway.

Raven1207: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 17:54:27 UTC


Darknight: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 18:09:26 UTC


Clucky: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 18:24:26 UTC


something else that needs to be fixed:

“and that Elector and any Elector who voted FOR it lose 1 Political Power.” needs to be something like “and that Elector and any Elector who voted FOR it lose 1 Political Power (or remain at 0 if its already 0)”. Otherwise failing a DoV where someone who voted FOR it but has 0 power would would lock the game up.

Vovix: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 00:32:00 UTC

for I don’t think allowing a Dynasty to modify victory rules is necessarily a bad thing.


22-02-2021 05:32:09 UTC