BlogNomic has moved!

The game is now running at

Saturday, August 30, 2003

Proposal: Turnover

Ammend Rule # 18 where it says:

"The Emperor may veto any Proposal, provided that there are at least two Citizens in Government. A vetoed Proposal immediately fails."

To say:

"The Emperor may veto any Proposal, provided that there are at least two Citizens in Government. A vetoed Proposal immediately fails. However, a veto may be overturned if all other citizens vote FOR the vetoed Proposal within 48 hours of the initial Proposition."

Enacted by Anthony, 9/1. +10 to Aaron & +5 to Anthony.

Proposal : Step Aside [Trivial]

[ Fixing the thing that Anthony keeps failing to fix. ]

In Rule 5, replace the paragraph beginning "If a pending Proposal's FOR votes" with:-

If the oldest pending Proposal's FOR votes exceed or equal Quorum, then any Admin Staff may update the Ruleset and/or gamestate to include the specified effects of that Proposal, and mark that Proposal as Enacted.

And replace the paragraph beginning "If a pending Proposal has enough AGAINST votes" with:-

If the oldest pending Proposal has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of them being changed, or if all Citizens have voted on it and it still cannot be Enacted, or if the Citizen who proposed it has voted AGAINST it, then any Admin Staff may mark that Proposal as Failed.

Enacted by Anthony, 9/1. +2 to Kevan & +2 to Anthony.

Proposal : The Price of Failure [Trivial]

In Rule 5, replace "When a Proposal fails, its proposer (if a current Citizen) loses 2 Credits." with "When a Proposal fails, its proposer loses 5 Credits." (Only current Citizens can possibly have Credits!)

In Rule 20, replace "Scientists lose 5 Credits (instead of 2) when any type of Proposal of theirs fails." with "Scientists lose 10 Credits (instead of 5) when any type of Proposal of theirs fails."

[ 2c is nothing! Think before you propose, Citizens. ]

Enacted by Anthony as per Rule 7, 9/1. +2 to Kevan & +2 to Anthony.

Proposal: Discounting the Energy Drink (trivial)

I just noticed that the Imperial Energy Drink let's you, in effect, buy another proposal. But since it costs 10c and you get 10c for a sucessful proposal, there really is little or no incentive to buying one.

So, I propose that we change the price of Imperial Energy Drink in Rule #27 from 10c to a more reasonable 5c.

And remember that any product bought on a Tuesday gets you a free lottery ticket!

Failed by Anthony, 8/31. -2 to Anthony & +2 to Anthony.

Friday, August 29, 2003

Request ... again

Well, Renee has left, for now. And it would seem that Mat is reaping in all the wealth and also he bears the brunt of the responsibility. Perhaps it could be more evenly distributed if you had another active government fellow. So, I ask again. If you feel that my services are better needed in the factory then so be it. Kanpai!

CFJ: Thoughtcrime

As you may know, I've been charged with the thoughtcrime of swearing for saying "laughing my ass off" in one of my blog posts. I don't really believe that the word "ass" used in this manner is bad enough to be counted under the thoughtcrime rule. What do you think?

Please tick "FOR" if you think that it was right for my "ass" to be punished under the thoughtcrime rule
Please cross "AGAINST" if you believe that what I said was inoffensive.

This isn't about the measly amount of 5 credits, I really am curious as to where the boundaries of this law lay.

CfJ failed by Anthony, 8/30

Proposal: Patching a loophole (trivial)

If Proposal: Patching a loophole (redux) passes, immediately forget it ever existed, and change Rule #5, paragraphs 2 and 3 to the following:
A proposal passes when it's FOR votes reach or exceed quorum. A proposal fails when it's AGAINST votes reach or exceed quorum, it's proposer votes against it, or when it doesn't have enough FOR votes to reach quorum. An admin can then mark the proposal ENACTED or FAILED in the order the proposals appear."

If that's not simple, I don't know what is... and it will prevent all that unecessary eyestrain, too!

Vetoed by Kevan.

Proposal: Pinball and more!

Add a new Location:
The Arcade. (Citizens are encouraged to play games in the Arcade.)

Enacted by Anthony, 8/30. +10 to Anthony & +5 to Anthony

Proposal : You Are Number Six

Add a new Location:-

The Prison. (Citizens may only be moved from the Prison by Proposal, or by proclamation of the Emperor.)

Enacted by Anthony, 8/30. +10 to Kevan & +5 to Anthony

Thursday, August 28, 2003

Proposal: People's Political Party

Create a new rule entitled "People's Political Party," which states:
There exists an alliance known as the "People's Political Party" (PPP), that's membership is limited to Civilians and Scientists. The alliance's purpose is to allow Civilians and Scientists to join together to lobby for their collective rights and freedoms.

Membership and Dues:
Any Citizen designated as a Civilian or Scientist may decide to join the alliance for the period of a week by paying 3c by noon on Sundays towards that week's dues. The Dues collected by the PPP will remain in the People's Official Account until they are used. Credits may only be added to the People's Offical Account through the collection of dues.

Party Chairpeople Selection:
The two Civilians or Scientists with the most credits at the beginning of each week as of noon Sunday, will be known for the duration of the week as the "Party Chairpeople." These two Citizens must each add 1c (instead of the normal 3c) to the People's Official Account and are the official decision-makers for the PPP during that week. Their decisions should represent the wishes of the PPP that week.

At the time of their selection, the Party Chairpeople must post an entry stating the number of PPP members for the week and the updated balance of credits in the People's Official Account.

Lobbying and Spreading the Wealth:
As mentioned above, the credits from each week's membership will accumulate in the People's Official Account. They may only be removed by that week's Party Chairpeople from said account in two cases: Lobbying and Spreading the Wealth.

Lobbying: At any one time during the week, the PPP may decide, through discussion amongst it's members, to use the credits in the People's Official Account to purchase one vote to apply to one Pending Proposal. That vote can either be FOR or AGAINST and will cost the PPP 3c per member involved that week. The week's designated Party Chairpeople have the ultimate decision in this matter and may apply a vote (equal to that of any Citizen) by choosing the correct icon in the comments and signing the vote with the signature "PPP." They must also immediately deduct the total Lobbying cost from the People's Official Account.

Spreading the Wealth: At any one time during the week, the PPP may decide through discussion amongst it's members to use the credits to "Spread the Wealth." In this case, the Party Chairpeople are responsible for crediting each member with 3c from the People's Official Account. This may only take place if enough credits exist in the People's Official Account at that time. This decision must be mentioned in the entry of a post entitled "Spreading the Wealth."

The PPP may make additions, subtractions, or otherwise alter their rules by Proposing them in the normal fashion and according to all applicable rules in the Ruleset.

Just in case you were wondering, the way I set up the credit requirements in this Proposal restricts the PPP from being able to abuse the actions available to them (ie- purchase a vote each week, etc.). It would enable some action, but not too much and would also work as a means of discussion. Let's give it a shot, I think it may be the start to adding more structure to the game.

Failed by Mat, Saturday the 30th

Attention Admins!

It seems like we finally got BackBlog back! Hooray!

Could one of you please update the sidebar to mark Squirrel idle and, in turn, update the quorum to 5? Thanks!!!

Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Thoughtcriminal detected!

The first thoughtcrime (to my knowledge) has been committed by Est who, in his personal weblog posted the following:
i know that i'm late with this, (if anyone's even reading, but anyway) but i sure was laughing my a** off when i heard that Pauline..."

5 credits have been deducted from Est's stock. Please don't let it happen again.

Proposal: Patching a loophole (redux)

Okay guys, here's a better fix to the loophole problem I discussed in this original proposal, based on Kevan and Cayvie's feedback.

Your feedback said you didn't want to add another sentence, so this proposal alters the third paragraph, adding "and if either no earlier Proposals are still pending," and basically making it identical to the rules for FOR voting, like you recommended.

I propose we alter Rule #5, paragraph 3 to patch the loophole:

If a pending Proposal's AGAINST votes exceed or equal quorum, and if either no earlier Proposals are still pending, or if all Citizens have voted on a Proposal and it still cannot be Enacted, or if the Citizen whose Proposal it was has voted AGAINST it, then any Admin Staff may mark that Proposal as Failed.

I also self-failed the original proposal to move the queue along.

Vetoed by Kevan.

Tuesday, August 26, 2003

Proposal: Visual Thinkers (Trivial)

Add a new Thoughtcrime:

Posting a picture or image with no comment. (15c)

[btw, I do like the idea of punishing territories for thoughtcrimes, although I don't know how we'd enforce it since they don't have credits to begin with . . . but maybe someone can work on that.]

Invalid proposal declared by Mat via Rule 3, paragraph 1, last sentence

See you later

My mother enacted some rules of her own, and I don't know how much time I'll be able to spend around here for a while. I shouldn't really be on now.

This means that I'm going to have to request that I be made idle, as I have no time to do it myself. I should be back within a month.

Also, would someone please propose a timelimit on thoughtcrime while I'm gone? Thanks.

Proposal : Second Thoughtcrime [Trivial]

Add another new Thoughtcrime:-

Making a spelling or typographical mistake. (2c)

Failed by Mat, Saturday the 30th

Proposal : Afterthoughtcrime [Trivial]

Add a new Thoughtcrime:-

Posting the results of a personality quiz, without personal comment. (30c)

Enacted by Mat, Saturday the 30th

Proposal: Ministry of Love

No, this is not a new location proposal.

Since we now have some location specialization it would be neat to have some alternative punishments, hence

enact a rule called "Ministry of Love" that states:

When a citizen is liable to be fined a quantity of five (5) credits or more they may instead be sent to the Hospital for "correction" by their prosecutor (only a non-hospitalized, government official may hospitalize a citizen in lieu of fining them). There they must stay for 36 hours. Within that first 36 hour period the Emperor may:

a) name a sentence for the hospitalized citizen not to exceed 72 hours
b) fail to name a sentence, and therefore the sentence will default to 36 hours
c) "pardon" the hospitalized citizen by removing them himself at anytime, regardless of the 36 hour minimum

However, after the Emperor's sentence hours have passed, the "corrected" citizen may not let themselves out (rule # 21) but rather each government official shall suffer a fine of two (2) credits per citizen in the hospital per 24 hour period exceeding the aforementioned 36 hours.

Additionally, the fine for falsely hospitalizing a citizen or prematurely removing a citizen before they have been "corrected" is five (5) credits.

No one may be hospitalized for a failed proposal.

Enacted by Mat, Saturday the 30th

Proposal: Time Out Revision

Here's a different method of dealing with the possible swamp of new proposals, since previous attempts (Slow Motion, Imperial Ceiling) have been voted down

I propose to completely rewrite Rule 7 - Time Out to read:

"If a proposal has been pending for longer than 48 hours, an admin may enact it if greater than half of the current votes on it are FOR; otherwise, he/she may fail it. If the emperor has not yet cast a vote, all imperial votes are ignored."

In addition to making the tide of proposals more manageable, this law would, in effect, allow players to abstain (by not voting), and would also eliminate all possible controversy from improper inactivity fines.

Enacted by Mat, Saturday the 30th

Proposal: Energy Drink

I propose to add the following item to the Chestnut Tree Cafe Menu (by altering rule 27 accordingly)

"Imperial Energy Drink - 10c"

and edit rule 3 - Proposals by adding the following sentence to the first paragraph:

"If a player has consumed Imperial Energy Drink in the past 8 hours, they may make a proposal, even if they have 2 non-trivial proposals pending, provided they have less than 3 total proposals pending."

Enacted by Mat, Thursday the 28th

Proposal : Doubleplusgood

[ Optional government acceleration of proposals, as a guard against population increase and voter apathy. ]

In Rule 4, replace "Valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, and IMPERIAL" with "Valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, DOUBLEPLUSGOOD, DOUBLEPLUSBAD and IMPERIAL".

Add the paragraph:-

A vote of DOUBLEPLUSGOOD is equivalent to two FOR votes; a vote of DOUBLEPLUSBAD is equivalent to two AGAINST votes. Only Government officials may cast DOUBLEPLUSGOOD or DOUBLEPLUSBAD votes, and they are signified by two successive FOR icons or AGAINST icons respectively.

To the paragraph beginning "If there exists more than one Vote", add "(DOUBLEPLUSGOOD and DOUBLEPLUSBAD are treated as single votes, for this purpose.)"

Failed by Mat, Thursday the 28th

Proposal : Tidying Up [Trivial]

[ Stuff in the wrong place that's been annoying me for a while. ]

Move the sentence "The Admin who sets up a new Citizen receives 10 Credits." from Rule 9 (Credits) to the start of the second paragraph of Rule 2 (Citizens).

Remove the sentences beginning "At the beginning of each Dynasty", "The Emperor is then awarded", "At the start of a new Dynasty" and "They may rejoin" from Rule 18 (Dynasties).

Remove the sentence beginning "When a new Dynasty begins" from Rule 19 (Ascension).

To the start of Rule 19 (Ascension), add the text:-

At the beginning of each Dynasty, each Citizen's (including Idle Citizens') GNDT stats are reset to zero or blank. Any Citizens who were idle throughout the previous Dynasty are removed from the game. The Emperor is then awarded an initial sum of 100 Credits, and any Admin may update the BlogNomic header to reflect the title of the new Dynasty.

Enacted by Mat, Thursday the 28th

Proposal: Wrong place, wrong time

In case you've yet to scroll down the blog, Cayvie's proposal "Concouse Forum" met quorum and was enacted. This, in effect, requires all citizens to either be located in the Imperial Palace or the Concourse to initiate proposals. Because there currently isn't a means to punish those, or at least ignore the proposals from those who are not in one of these two locations, I'd like to propose the following:

Add to the end of the first paragraph of rule 3:
Any citizen who initiates a proposal while not in one of these two area shall be forced to pay each active player two (2) credits from their own stock as a fine for not following procedures.

This implies, via the sentence prior, that the two places are the ones mentioned above.

Vetoed by Kevan.

Monday, August 25, 2003

Proposal: Winds of War

[This came out of what Kevan said about declaring war on other weblogs, as well as some ideas I've been working on ever since I joined BlogNomic. I like it because sort of involves other people, who are not players, in our game. It also provides Military players with some sort of compensation -- civilians get credits for working in the factory, scientists for passing proposals, and military players for a successful conquering of another weblog. I've provided this just as the base of our rules for warfare. I hope other players expand on this and take it to new heights.]

“BlogNomic may declare war on other weblogs. To do this, a Military player must post a Declaration of War (DoW) detailing the name, address, and reason(s) for attacking the target weblog. A DoW passes or fails in the same manner as a proposal. If the DoW passes, the Military player who posted it gains 15 Credits. If the DoW fails, the Military player who posted it loses 10 credits.

If the DoW passes, BlogNomic is said to be currently AT WAR with the target weblog. BlogNomic may only be at war with one weblog at a time. After the DoW passes, the Military Player who posted it must notify the target weblog in a response to a post on the target weblog, or if that is not possible, in an email message to the keeper of the weblog. This notification must include the options the target weblog has, as well as the consequences of those options, as follows.

The target weblog may declare its response to the attack either COMPLIANT or REBELLIOUS. If the target weblog is compliant, they immediately become a territory of BlogNomic, as listed on the sidebar, and BlogNomic is no longer at war with that weblog. If the target weblog is rebellious, then every player is encouraged to “attack” the target weblog either by responding or emailing to the target weblog (a player may claim 10 Credits, only once, for doing this). If, after the attack, they wish to change to compliant, they may do so, and then become a territory of BlogNomic, and BlogNomic is no longer at war with that weblog. If they are still rebellious after the attack, then the mission has failed and BlogNomic is no longer at war with that weblog.

If a target weblog becomes compliant, then every Military player gains 10 Credits. The Military player who originally posted the DoW is encouraged to post updates on the state of the campaign."

Enacted by Mat, Thursday the 28th

It's not goodbye...

I probably should have just done this via email to Kevan or something, but I've been having so much fun that I wanted to say a proper "See you later" to everyone.

Due to unforseen circumstances, I have to request to be made idle. And I just went and cast all those votes! Curses! sans sheriff will be down for a month, and I can't, in good conscience, keep playing here if that's the case. See you all in a month. Just don't burn the place down while I'm gone.

Proposal: Patching a loophole

While discussing the rules regarding enacting proposals with Mat, it came to our attention that although the rules allow for Citizens to change their votes while a proposal is still pending, the Ruleset doesn't allow all Pending Proposals equal time to be considered. This is because Pending Proposals don't necessarily have to be marked as FAILED in the order they were proposed, yet they must be ENACTED according to that order (ie- the proposal queue).

Why is this a problem? Its a problem because it means Pending Proposals with a lot of FOR or IMP votes early on will sit there and can be continuously debated until the queue gets to them, while those with a couple AGAINST votes early on can be FAILED almost immediately with less than the number of quorum voting against them and with hardly any time for discussion. This presents a condition where Proposals are more likely to fail, regardless of merit.

The loophole is in Rule #5 and is basically because the third paragraph doesn't mention that Pending Proposals must be FAILED in a certain order, which is the opposite of what the second paragraph says regarding ENACTMENT.

I propose we add the following to Rule #5 to clarify the order:

All Pending Proposals must be either ENACTED or FAILED in the order they were proposed (unless they make no changes to the Ruleset).

Please note that if you think there's a way to speed up the mechanics of the queue process (as some have suggested may be needed due to an increase in players), passing this clarification is the first step to moving things along, by processing them in the proper order.

Failed by Mat, Wednesday the 27th

Sunday, August 24, 2003


I was just checking the GNDT records, and I noticed that Aaron had deducted 10 points from Mat and Renee for not voting on Further OH&S, though Mat was the first to vote. Then Mat fixed this, and took 10 points off Est, though Est was the one who proposed the rule. Aaron fixed this.

This entire debacle brings to light an interesting point. If anyone can fine anyone else, it only takes a small error to cause an annoying amount of damage. I was going to suggest that we only allow admins to fine people, but then I noticed that Mat was an admin, and apparently as fallible as any of us. Does anyone have any solution to this problem? Perhaps we should just eliminate fines altogether and just pass or fail any laws that have been pending 48 hours (failing laws that are tied)?

I don't really know the answer, I just think this needs to be addressed before it gets out of hand.