This would force people to know who they want to hand a dynasty off to prior to the end of the dynasty. which makes it hard to either hand it off to a deserved runner up or someone with a cool dynasty idea.

This could be a minor hindrance to mantlesharing. A little headache until they sort out how to get the mantle to who they want in the end. I think at best, this creates a 48 hour window between a final, team-revealing play and a DoV, in which someone or some team who is hot on their tails could ostensibly catch up.

As for as dynasty-specific dynamics go, I’m still saying it’s too early for public pooling dynamics.

I will likely vote FOR this, but I think that the choice should be given to the Eli Curf as to whether this should initialise as active or not.

@Clucky It has been literal years since the last time a mantle was handed off on the basis of anything other than pooling; I feel like committing to culture change requires some steps like these in order to make them stick.

Can we try this out as dynastic instead of special case first?

A special case rule can be deactivated at the end of the dynasty just as easily as a dynastic rule can be repealed.

Added a clause to address your point about imperial fiat, Josh.

It can be deactivated, sure, but I don’t know if I want to sign up for it being activated unilaterally in future dynasties.

If this doesn’t work out, the bar for repealing a special case rule is no higher than the bar for repealing any other rule.

Getting repealed nearly automatically at the end of a dynasty is a lower bar.

I look forward to your vote against, pokes!

Here you go!

dislike that this is on by default

dislike that this forces the Eli Curf to opt out rather than opt in

I’m also not sure this’ll help in the right ways for the dynasties that is on.

it doesn’t really prevent pooling. we already don’t see pools of size 4 or more most of the time.

what it does prevent is smash and grab victories where someone happens to notice that with a bit of help they could pull out a win as long as they rope another person into pulling some levers for them. Which I think is a perfectly reasonable way to win that in many ways is better than just “a trio of three people worked together to push all their stuff through all dynasty long”

I like the direction this is happening though I do not like that it defaults to on, since I’d really rather pooling turn into an exception rather than the rule.

Rare is the rule that is turned off by default, and the most recent dynasty was won by a four-person pool. Preventing pooling is not the intention; creative constraint is the intention. And this does not at all prevent the kind of victory you’re describing—it just requires that you wait 48 hours after you see your opportunity, if your collaborator wants a win share, which as you pointed out in your first comment here is not always the case.

Yeah but if you wait 48 hours the smash and grab opportunity might be gone. So I think it does prevent that kind of victory.

One other aspect of this proposal that I forgot to put in the comments, and a reason it belongs in Special Case: it interacts with Dynastic Distance to offer a simple switch for whether Eli Curf can join in team victories or not.

Mostly per Pokes.

48 hours is also no time at all, with the strange, resignatory energy of BlogNomic endgames: if a cabal pulled off some game-winning trick and said “now we just wait 48 hours before declaring victory, you will notice that nobody else can win in this time”, their rivals would either nod and wait, or vote through a CfJ to speed it along.

Per Clucky, this doesn’t actually stop long-term pooling, but does block the more interesting pooling maneuvers like working together to take advantage of an end game opportunity.