More Assassins Fixing [Trivial]

In the rule Assassins, change the sentence reading:

Once every 48 hours, the Leader of an Alliance may post a comment to the GNDT reading "Send Assassin to [Opposing Alliance], DICE:" where [Opposing Alliance] is the name of the target Alliance for the Assassin.

so it reads

Once every 48 hours, the Leader of an Alliance may pay 5 Reputation to post a comment to the GNDT reading "Send Assassin to [Opposing Alliance], DICE:" where [Opposing Alliance] is the name of the target Alliance for the Assassin.

If there exists a sentence that reads

The Leader who sent the Assassin has their T-Neg raised by one.

then change "raised" to "lowered" in that sentence.

6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Assassins Cleanup [Trivial]

In the rule Assassins, change:

2 - The Assassin is found and killed in the ensuing chase. The Leader who sent the Assassin may not send another to any Alliance for an extra 24 hours.

to

2 - The Assassin is found and killed in the ensuing chase. The Leader who sent the Assassin may not send another to any Alliance for an extra 24 hours and loses 5 Reputation.

and

3 - The Assassin is caught, breaks under torture, and reveals who sent them. The Leader who sent the Assassin has their Trust lowered by one.

to

3 - The Assassin is caught, breaks under torture, and reveals who sent them. The Leader who sent the Assassin has their T-Neg raised by one.

If this proposal passes, Knightking shall receive 100% of the reward.

6-0 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, Oct 25

CfJ: Reputation rewards from Enactment

Rule 6 has a Paragraph reading:

When a Proposal is enacted, its proposer gains 10 Reputation, or 2 Reputation if it was Trivial. When a Proposal fails, its proposer loses 3 Reputation.

When I was Admining a batch of Proposals early today, ShadowSliver changed his own Reputation on grounds of having his Proposals Admined, while I was still in the middle of the process of Adming.

If this CfJ passes, a note shall be appended to the Glossary saying that applying Reputation rewards/penalties is the duty of the Admin enforcing Enactment or Failure.

8-0 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, Oct 25
I broadened the wording to include all rule effects triggered off of Proposal Enactment/Failure (like our current Reputation Sharing rule)

Proposal: Lone Alliances [Trivial]

In the Alliances rule, change

If any Alliance has less than two members for over 24 hours, the Alliance is dissolved and the Alliance of any remaining members is cleared.

to

If an Alliance has only one member, that member is called a Rogue. Rogue Warlords are not considered Warlords for the purpose of Requesting Audiences with any Alliance.

As it is now, all you have to do is keeping creating an Alliance every 24 hours and gain access to all benefits of the rules.

5-2 Timed Out. Enacted by Orson, Oct 25

Alliance Creation: Fizz

I annouce the great agglomeration of the Fizz Alliance. All Warlords with Fizzy ambitions may apply within.

Summoning: Activity

I hereby summon all Activity members to send Diplomatic Rebukes to both Orson and Simon, for their traitorous actions over the last days. Their insidious treachery shall not go unpunished.

Notice for Mickey and Aaron

You can't vote until you're allied, and you get idled if you can't vote. So you'd best hurry up and attempt to join one Alliance or another (I recommend Entropy.)

Proposal: Reputation Sharing

You fool! You have brought dishonor on us all!

Add a rule Reputation Sharing,

When a Proposal is enacted, members of the same Alliance as the proposer gain 2 Reputation, or 1 Reputation if it was Trivial. When a Proposal fails, members of the same Alliance as the proposer lose 1 Reputation.

If the fellow member is Leader, double the amount of Reputation gained or lost by that Leader under this rule.

If the proposer is Leader, double the amount of Reputation gained or lost by all fellow members under this rule.

7-1 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 24

Proposal: Duel for Revenge

In Rule 20, Add:

• Under Challenge:

  *Revenge: The Challenger must have a Casus Belli against the Defendant. In the challenge, there must be a description of where it will take place and what cannot be used. Also, the challenge should name one Warlord to be the Moderator. No responses can be made to the post until the Moderator has posted the strategies.
  

• Under Test of Skill:

  *Revenge: Both the Challenger and the Defendant must write a strategy, which includes what they will do to win the duel (ie: sneak behind the tree, than ready my bow and etc. , etc.), and email it to the Moderator. If no response is sent to the Moderator from one of the Warlords within 48 hours, then the Warlord with no response is said to have left the duel. That Warlord loses 15 reputation and the duel is considered resolved.
  

• Under Resolution:

  *Revenge: The Moderator then replies to the original challenge with the strategies received. Then, any Warlord may respond to the challenge with a vote of FOR, AGAINST, or DEFERENTIAL, for who they think has the best strategy. DEFERENTIAL will refer to the leader of that Warlords alliance, or if they are the leader, to the High Lord. A vote of FOR means that the challenger won, AGAINST means that the defendant won. The challenger wins if the number of FOR votes equals or exceeds Quorum, and loses if the number of AGAINST votes equals or exceeds Quorum. If the challenger wins, the defendant is off his/her Casus Belli and loses 10 reputation. If the challenger loses, the challenger loses 12 reputation.

6-0 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 24

Notice: Repealing

I just deleted the Paragraph that read

Repeal this paragraph 48 hours after this proposal passes.

in the Alliances rule.

Proposal: Generalized Warfare

Add a rule Attack Audiences:

At any time a Warlord may attempt to make his own Alliance Attack another Warlord, by requesting an Audience with that Alliance, with a subject of "Attack: [Warlord]". This Audience must be not be tallied for Approval or Rejection if there are any Audience request at any Alliance which subject is "Defend: [Warlord]" and the named Warlord is the same as in the Attack request.

Once in the period of 24 hours after the posting of this Request, the Warlord named as victim of the Attack may include the Petitioner in his list of Casus Belli.

No Audience requesting an Attack may be posted if there exists another pending Attack request for the same Alliance. This includes Attacks announced under the rule Alliance Warfare.

If the Audience is approved, all Warlords pertaining to the named Alliance Attack the victim, once, in the period of 24 hours immediately after the Approval.

If the Audience is rejected, the Petitioner loses 15 Reputation, but he and any other Warlord that voted FOR the audience may still Attack the victim, once, in the period of 24 hours immediately after the Rejection. In the period of 24 after the Rejection of the Audience, the Petitioner may choose to leave his Alliance without incurring any other penalty for doing so.

Either in case of Approval or in case of Rejection, the Warlord requesting the Audience shall be considered the Attack Coordinator.

Add a rule Defense Audiences:

At any time, if there’s a pending Audience request at any Alliance which subject is "Attack [Warlord]", any Warlord in the same Alliance as the victim may attempt to make his own Alliance Defend the attacked Warlord, by requesting an Audience with that Alliance, with a subject of "Defend:[Warlord]". If this Audience is Approved, then the corresponding Attack request must be tallied at once, regardless of having reached quorum.

Only one Audience may be requested for Defense against any Attack request.

If the Audience is approved, all Warlords pertaining to the named Alliance Defends the victim against the corresponding Attack.

If the Audience is rejected, the Petitioner loses 10 Reputation, but he and any other Warlord that voted FOR the audience still Defends the victim. In the period of 24 after the rejection of the Audience, the Petitioner and the Victim may choose to leave the Alliance without incurring any other penalty for doing so. Warlords leaving the Alliance this way may include, at once, the Leader of their former Alliance in their list of Casus Belli.

In either case, the Warlord requesting the Audience shall be considered the Defense Coordinator.

If the Audience was VETOED, the Leader also loses 5 Reputation, and any Warlord may leave the Alliance in the period of 24 after the rejection of the Audience without incurring any other penalty for doing so. Warlords leaving the Alliance this way may include, at once, the Leader of their former Alliance in their list of Casus Belli.

This creates a mean of non-Leaders asking for an Alliance Attack.

4-0 Timed Out. Enacted by Orson, October 24

Proposals: Peasants

Adds a new rule, Peasants:

Each Warlord controls a certain number of peasants, which is tracked in the GNDT.

New Warlords begin with 50 peasants.

Peasants may not be negative or contain a fraction, if this occurs make it 0, or round it down, respectively.

At anytime, a Warlord may decrease one of his/her military powers by 1 to increase his/her number of peasants by 1.

I thought about making it part of Rule 14, but decided against it. If people think it should be, than it can be changed later.

1-6 - Reached Quorum - Failed by Chronos
Orson's vote defered to Chronos', current Activity leader
Truman's vote defered to Simon's, current Entropy leader
Aaron's vote defered to none, since he's a Leader and the High Lord has not voted

Proposal: No negative trust [Trivial]

If in the rule Ritual Warfare there is a paragraph reading:

* Step 3: Add the Total Trust of every Attacking Warlord to this Dice. This figure is the Modified Attack Dice;

change it to

* Step 3: Add the Total Trust of every Attacking Warlord to this Dice. If it results in a number lower than 1, take 1 instead. This figure is the Modified Attack Dice;

If in the rule Ritual Warfare there is a paragraph reading:

* Step 3: Add the Total Trust of every Defending Warlord to this Dice. This figure is the Modified Defend Dice;

change it to

* Step 3: Add the Total Trust of every Defending Warlord to this Dice. If it results in a number lower than 1, take 1 instead. This figure is the Modified Defend Dice;

Self-Explaining

Self-Kill - Failed by Chronos

CfJ: Reword Increasing Powers

Change

Once a day, a Warlord may Increase his Powers. When Increasing, A Warlord must spend up to 20 Reputation and raise his Offensive Power and/or Defensive Power. The sum of the raisings must be up to twice the spent value.

to

Warlords may spend up to 20 Reputation per day to Increase military power. Each point spent in this way increases either Offensive or Defensive Power by 2.

As stated at the voting on the Proposal which created this ruleing, the reword is cleaner and without much impact upon the mechanics.

8-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Audience with Entropy: Application

My bid for Leadership at Activity was soundly rejected (or ignored). Would the members of Entropy care to enlist my sword for their campaigns?

2-0 Timed Out & Approved. I'm changing my Alliance to Entropy, October 23

Proposal: Assassinate!

"I've never seen these so-called assassins," a footsoldier complained to his comrade. "How do we even know they exist?"

"They exist." The two soldiers spun around to discover Simon sitting nearby, under the shade of one of the few trees in the fortress yard, idly sharpening his axe. "And they don't let you forget it. They come in the night, they blend in with the walls, and by the time you know they were even there, they're gone."

The soldiers' eyes widened. "H-how do you know all this, sir? I've never heard of anything like that happening here..."

Simon half-smiled, silently admiring his weapon. "What do you think I used to do before I became a warlord?"

Add a new rule, Assassins:

Assassins rule the night in the lands around the alliance lands. Once every 48 hours, the Leader of an Alliance may post a comment to the GNDT reading "Send Assassin to [Opposing Alliance], DICE:" where [Opposing Alliance] is the name of the target Alliance for the Assassin. The result of the dice roll determines the effect of the attack:

1 - The Assassin manages to get into an enemy stronghold, but has a few close calls and decides to leave without doing any damage. No effect.
2 - The Assassin is found and killed in the ensuing chase. The Leader who sent the Assassin may not send another to any Alliance for an extra 24 hours.
3 - The Assassin is caught, breaks under torture, and reveals who sent them. The Leader who sent the Assassin has their Trust lowered by one.
4 - The Assassin kills several soldiers. The Leader who sent the Assassin may pick any Warlord in the target Alliance to lose 15 Offensive Power.
5 - The Assassin manages to poison the water supply. The Leader who sent the Assassin may pick any Warlord in the target Alliance to lose 15 Defensive Power.
6 - The Assassin causes dissent among the ranks. The Leader who sent the Assassin may pick any Warlord in the target Alliance to have their Distrust lowered by one.

A Warlord may not be the target of an Assassin effect if they have three or more names on their Casus Belli list.

I picked 48 hours instead of 24 because I didn't know how people would feel about daily (nightly?) assassin attacks. We can change it later if enough of you feel strongly about it.

6-2 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos
Aaaron's vote defered to High Lord Knightking's

Proposal: Less GNDT Entries! [Trivial]

Modify rule 14:

Replace:

Each Warlord has an Offensive Power and a Defensive Power, which is tracked by the GNDT.

With:

Each Warlord has a Power which is tracked in the GNDT using the form of #/#, where both are numbers (ie: 100/110). The first number is the Offensize Power and the second number is the Defensive Power.

8-2 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos
Orson's vote defered to Chronos', current Activity Leader

Proposal: What's Trust got to do with it? [Trivial]

If a rule, Ritual Warfare exists, remove step 3 of the Offensive and Defensive Combined Power calculations, and renumber the remaining steps accordingly.

[I worry about a high-Trust Alliance turning up one day, and that I won't be in it.]

5-2 - Timed-out - Enacted by Chronos

Challenge Leadership: Chronos

I throw the Ceremonial Duelling Blade as Chronos is explaining his warfare plans to the other members in the War room. It plunges into the table in front of him and quivers there.

"You have revealed your collusion with a member of House Entropy in making these plans. That credit should rightly belong to us. You are strengthening outsiders at our expense. I have also witnessed you exchanging pleasantries with the Leader of House Entropy - again, strengthening our rivals. Why would you do that? I question your loyalty!"

"Other members of House Activity, I will be a better Leader. For one thing, the Reputation I gain if I win this Duel will strengthen our entire Alliance, should open warfare begin."

"So we will see who is fit to rule, Chronos, either pick up the Blade and meet me in the Courtyard or we fight here and now with bare hands."

Challenge Failed, Oct. 21

Proposal: Who Let Him In? [Trivial]

Append the following to the rule Leaving Alliances:

Any Warlord whose Reputation is below 20 may be immediately removed from his Alliance by any Warlord.

Oh, I know Lord Hermlin's a better man than to be cavorting around with that scoundrel. Let us speak of him no more.

0-6 Self Fail. Failed by Orson, October 21

Proposal: Lets Be Civilized About Killing Each Other

If the Ritual Warfare rule passes, append the following to the rule Casus Belli:

Any Warlord who holds a Casus Belli against another Warlord may attack that Warlord, as specified by the rule Ritual Warfare.

Any Warlord without a Casus Belli may attack another Warlord. This action gives a Casus Belli against the attacking warlord to the defender, and costs the attacker 10 Reputation, plus an additional 10 Reputation if the defender is a member of any alliance in which the attacker is also a member.

No other Warlords may participate in the military actions described by the preceding two paragraphs.

You're going to regret that.

I'd suggest that someone propose a modification to the third paragraph when they figure out how to work Alliances in here.

0-6 Self-kill. Failed by Orson, October 21
Simon's Vote of DEFERENTIAL became the same as the High Lord's Vote (rule 16 did not apply as he was the Leader of an Alliance, so his Voting resolution followed rule 5)

Proposal: More Power [Trivial]

Add to the Military Powers rule:

Once a day, a Warlord may Increase his Powers. When Increasing, A Warlord must spend up to 20 Reputation and raise his Offensive Power and/or Defensive Power. The sum of the raisings must be up to twice the spent value.

Mine's bigger than yours... My Reputation, of course...

8-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos
- Aaron's vote not counted, as he's not in a Alliance
- Truman's vote defered to Simon's, current Entrpy Leader

Proposal: Alliance Warfare

Add a new Rule called Alliance Warfare

At any time, if an Alliance has no pending Attack declaration the Leader may post an attack declaration in the format "Attack: [Warlord]", where [Warlord] is a Warlord not in the Attacking alliance. In the comments for this entry, Warlords in the Attacking Alliance and the Warlords in the Alliance of the Attacked Warlord (Defending Alliance) , must indicate, using the FOR and AGAINST icons whether they will participate in the battle with the exception of the Attacked Warlord, who must participate.

After 24 hours, if no Warlords in the Attacking Alliance have voted FOR, the Attack automatically fails and the Leader at the time of the declaration loses 15 Reputation. Otherwise all Warlords in the Attacking Alliance who voted FOR Attack the Defender and any allies which voted FOR participating, with the Leader serving as Attack coordinator and the Defender as the Defense coordinator.

If the attack fails, all Warlords in the Attacking Alliance lose 5 Reputation, and those who did not participate lose an additional 5 Reputation. If the attack succeeds, all Warlords in the Defending Alliance lose 5 Reputation, and those who did not participate lose an additional 5 Reputation.

If there are no rules for multiple Warlords attacking multiple Warlords in the Ruleset, this Rule may not be used.

This does a few interesting things. It gives an actual meaning to Leadership, and gives an actual reason for an alliance to not want weaker people in it, as they will be forced to constantly defend them or lose reputation.

8-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos - Aaron's vote not counted, as he's not in a Alliance

Proposal: Limited Generosity [Trivial]

Technically, the invitation for me to join Activity still stands, right? Maybe we should withdraw these offers eventually.

Add to the end of the rule 11, Alliances:

Any time a Warlord joins an Alliance, all invitations that have been extended for that Warlord to join other Alliances cease to apply.

If an invitation to join an Alliance has been standing for more than 48 hours, it ceases to apply.

6-1 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos - Aaron's vote not counted, as he's not in a Alliance

Proposal: Distrusting Duels [Trivial]

In the Duels rule, add:

• Under Challenge:
  

  * Distrust: The Defendant must be of an Alliance different than the Challenger's and the Challenger must have a positive "T-Total" Trust Value greater than the Defendant's "T-Total" Trust Value. The content of the Challenge must include the reasons why the Defendant must be Distrusted and a choice of dueling venue and weapons. The Defendant must make a single comment to the Challenge to respond, using the icon FOR if he wants to accept the Challenge or AGAINST if he wants do decline it. If the Defendant declines the Challenge, both him and the Challenger must lose 5 Reputation and the Challenge is resolved. If the Defendant fails to post the response within 24 hours of the Challenge being issued, he's considered to have declined the Challenge. No Distrust Challenge may be issued against a Warlord which is already a Defendant in a unresolved Distrust Challenge.



• Under Test of Skill:
  

  * Distrust: Follow the same procedures as in the Leadership Test of Skill.



• Under Resolution:
  

  * Distrust: Any Warlord in the same Alliance as either the Challenger or the Defendant may post one, and only one, comment to the Challenge, using the usual vote FOR, AGAINST or DEFERENTIAL. DEFERENTIAL defer to the vote of the Leader of the voter's Alliance. If there are at least half (rounding up) as many FOR as there are Warlords in both Alliances, or if it is more than 24 hours since the accepting of the Challenge by the Defendant and more than half of its votes are FOR, then the Challenge is resolved in favor of the Challenger. If there are at least half (rounding up) as many AGAINST as there are Warlords in both Alliances, or if it is more than 24 hours since the accepting of the Challenge by the Defendant and less than half of its votes are FOR, then the Challenge is resolved in favor of the Defendant. If the Challenge is resolved in favor of the Challenger, the Defendant's "T-Neg" Trust Value shall be lowered by the number of votes FOR the Challenge. If the Challenge is resolved in favor of the Defendant, the Challenger must lose 15 Reputation and the Defendant's "T-Pos" Trust Value shall be raised by the number of votes AGAINST the Challenge.

Self-Kill - Failed by Chronos

Proposal: Ritual Warfare

This is a VERY long rule, I know, but I tried to cover every aspect
of the combat. It's purposefully slightly unbalanced through Attackers
(All things being equal - dice, trust factor, etc. - Defenders will
lose with a Defeat Ratio of 75%).

I know also that this rule doesn't create any means of actually
starting an Attack. That's also purposeful. I already have a rule ready
to be proposed creating means for Mass Attacking and Mass Defending -
through Audiences, but I will wait to see if this one passes.

Add a rule Ritual Warfare

One or more Warlords may Attack another one if a rule, other than this one, permits them to do so. Said rule must specify the time the Attacks occurs, which Warlords are entitled to join the Attack and which one of them will be the Attack Coordinator.

If a Warlord is Attacked, he must Defend himself. If a rule permits more Warlords to join his Defense, said rule must specify which one of them will be the Defense Coordinator.

If only one Warlord is attacking and/or defending, that Warlord is considered as the corresponding Coordinator.

The Attack Coordinator is responsible to make all the calculations necessary to appoint the Results of the Combat. He shall publish the name of all Warlords involved in the combat and all steps of those calculations as a post to the Blog, with subject: “Combat Results: [Attack Coordinator Name] x [Defense Coordinator Name]” and shall update the GNDT to reflect the results of that Combat.

When appointing the Results of the Combat, the Attack Coordinator shall compute 2 figures: Combined Attacking Power and Combined Defending Power.

To compute Combined Attacking Power, the Attack Coordinator shall take all the following steps:

* Step 1: Total up the Offensive Power of all Attacking Warlords. This figure is the Raw Attacking Power;
* Step 2: Roll a dice, by making a GNDT entry reading “Attack DICE:”. This figure is the Attack Dice;
* Step 3: Add the Total Trust of every Attacking Warlord to this Dice. This figure is the Modified Attack Dice;
* Step 4: Divide the Modified Attack Dice by 3. This figure is the Attack Modifier.
* Step 5: Multiply the Raw Attacking Power by the Attack Modifier. This is the Combined Attacking Power

To compute Combined Defending Power, the Attack Coordinator shall take all the following steps:

* Step 1: Total up the Defensive Power of all Defending Warlords. This figure is the Raw Defending Power;
* Step 2: Roll a dice, by making a GNDT entry reading “Defend DICE:”. This figure is the Defend Dice;
* Step 3: Add the Total Trust of every Defending Warlord to this Dice. This figure is the Modified Defend Dice;
* Step 4: Divide the Modified Defend Dice by 4. This figure is the Defend Modifier.
* Step 5: Multiply the Raw Defending Power by the Defend Modifier. This is the Combined Defending Power

The side with greatest Combined Power shall be appointed the winner of the Combat. The Attack Coordinator shall then divide the Combined Power of the loser Side by the Combined Power of the winner Side. This figure is the Defeat Ratio.

After defining the Defeat Ratio, if the Attacking Side is the Winner, all defending Warlords’ Defensive Power shall be changed to its own value multiplied by the Defeat Ratio. If the Defending Side is the Winner, each attacking Warlord’s Offensive Power shall be changed to its own value multiplied by the Defeat Ratio.

Each Warlord in the Winner Side has it Reputation raised by the number of Warlords participating in the other side of the Combat.

If this Proposal passes, ShadowSliver shall receive 100% of the reward for its authoring, as his contributions were priceless for the issuing of this Proposal.

6-1 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 20

Notice: No Pendind Proposals!!!!

Congratulations guys!!!! It seems to gather momentum...

Idol Talk

Dropping out. Hopefully not permanently, but certainly long term - work is heavy, NaNoWriMo is looming and the Orbital Wars is taking up what little creative energy I have left. Hopefully I'll be back in play during or after November.

Until then, have fun.

Proposal: Let's Settle this like Warlords

He must now accept your challenge or lose face. That is how things are done.

Add a rule called Duels,

Duels are resolved in a three step process: Challenge, Test of Skill and Resolution. Each step has universal requirements as well as specific requirements according to the Form of the Duel.

I. Challenge
A Warlord may throw down the gauntlet by posting an entry with the subject "Challenge [Form]:[Warlord]". This is known as the Challenge. The poster is known as the Challenger; the Warlord named is known as the Defendant. In addition, the Challenge must follow the guidelines of the Duel's Form:

* Leadership. The Defendant must be the Leader of the same Alliance as the Challenger and the Challenger must have more than 20 Reputation. The content of the Challenge must include a description of the failings of the Leader and a choice of dueling venue and weapons. The Defendant may make a single comment to the Challenge to respond. (This comment is traditional, but irrelevant, as a Leadership Duel must always be accepted.)

II. Test of Skill
After a Challenge has been properly made, a Test of Skill occurs according to the Duel's Form:

* Leadership. The Defendant and Challenger may each post up to 3 additional comments to the Challenge, in alternation, where they may describe their actions of battle using the venue and weapons of the Challenge. No other Warlords may post a comment to the Challenge until this is done. (Note that these comments are for show only and have no effect on the Gamestate, so a description of an opponent's death may prove exaggerated.) This Test of Skill is considered complete after the Challenge has been made.

III. Resolution
After the Test of Skill is complete, it is resolved according to the Duel's Form:

* Leadership. All members of the Alliance may freely change their Vote for Leader during a period of 24 hours since the Challenge was made. At that time, if the Challenger has not become Leader, they must lose 20 Reputation and the Defendant may gain 10 Reputation. If the Challenger has become Leader by that time, they may gain 20 Reputation, and the Defendant must lose 10 Reputation.

7-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos. Truman's Vote defered to Simon's, current Entropy Leader.

Call for Judgment: Leaving Alliances Fizzle

Patio11 (aka Patrick McKenzie) made the Proposal: Leaving Alliances.

It passed, but I was unable to enter it in the ruleset, as there was no rule specified for the text.

If this Call for Judgement passes, a rule shall be created with the name given by Patio11 in the comments to this CfJ, and the contents of Proposal: Leaving Alliances.

Would the assorted Warlords please render their verdict?

7-0 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 19.
Inserted rule Leaving Alliances after rule Joining Alliances.

Proposal: Causus Belli [Trivial]

Add a new rule, Causus Belli, as follows:

The GNDT will track the Causus Belli list for each Warlord.

A Warlord may renounce a Causus Belli he or she holds against another Warlord at any time. That Warlord is then striken from his or her Causus Belli list.


A Warlord may send another Warlord whom does not currently have a Causus Belli against them a Diplomatic Rebuke. The targetted Warlord loses 5 reputation and immediately gains a Causus Belli against the Warlord sending the Rebuke.

Oh really, he's sacked my villages and razed my fields? Tell the mandarins to send him a strongly worded message. Sign it in red ink, that will show the bugger.

6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Rule Cleanup [Trivial]

In rule 2, change

For the purposes of all other rules, idle Warlords are not counted as Warlords

to

For the purposes of rules other than 1 and 2, idle Warlords are not counted as Warlords

Currently, an Admin could go idle and be able to freely change the ruleset, as rule 1 does not apply to them

Add to the end of rule 11

If at any time a warlord would be in multiple alliances, they are in the last alliance they joined only.

In Rule 11 change

Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for rules which do not have the word “Alliances” in the name.

,

Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for the purposes of Rules 4, 5, and 6.

and

Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for rules which do not have the word “Alliance”, or any inflection of it, in the name.

to

Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for rules other than 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11 and 12.

Gives them back the right to quit, CfJ, etc., but specifically excludes voting, winning and any other round specific actions (such as attacking someone). By doing this, we can greatly simply things by always assuming that everyone is in an alliance, without having to avoid the word alliance in the name.

In rule 11, change

Any Warlord may announce the creation of a new Alliance by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Alliance Creation: [Alliance Name]” in bold. Optionally any number of invites may be included in the format “Invite: [Warlord Name]”. Warlords who are invited in this way may immediately join the alliance without requesting permission. If the creating Warlord was already in an Alliance, creating an Alliance costs 10 Reputation.

to

Any Warlord may announce the creation of a new Alliance by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Alliance Creation: [Alliance Name]” in bold. Optionally any number of invites may be included in the format “Invite: [Warlord Name]”. Warlords who are invited in this way may immediately join the alliance without requesting permission. If the creating Warlord was already in an Alliance, creating an Alliance costs 10 Reputation and all other Warlords in the Alliance lose 5 Reputation. Upon announcing the creation of an Alliance, a Warlord's Alliance is set to that alliance. Announcements may not be edited as soon as the announced Alliance has greater than one Warlord.

The multiple warlords sentence was what I decided on as cleanest, as it does need to be possible to edit the announcements for a short period, and the fact that alliances go away quickly if no one joins makes it rather hard to abuse.

6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos. Patio11's vote defered to Simon's, current Entropy Leader.

VOTE Capote

Vote Capote for Leader of Entropy.

Because democracy is too good a thing to share with just anybody.

And if I'm not elected, the chance is very good that members of Blognomic will be hit again by a devastating terrorist attack.

CfJ: Various Stuff

Chronos edited the "Alliance Created: Activity" post so that he could invite new player Mickey without going through the invitation process. I'm okay with that, but I think this is a vital issue that we should address sooner rather than later, especially since this is just the beginning of the new Dynasty and most new players will join in this timeframe. So if this CfJ passes, some admin will tack on a "no editing Alliance creation posts" clause in the rule "Alliances" where appropriate.

Also, I'm pleased to announce that a draft version of the History of the Fourth Dynasty of Kevan is now available. Comments, compliments, additions, subtractions, and reformats will all be scrutinized with due diligence if you'd care to post them. I call dibs on the 20 Reputation.

7-0 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 19.
Modified Rule 11:
"A Warlord may alter or remove their own Alliance Creation post, provided that nobody else has commented on it and no one has joined the Alliance."

The High Lord must verify and authorize your History before a reward can be given.

Proposal: Nomic within a Nomic

Create a Rule entitled Alliance Proposals:

Add a new Rule for any Alliance, entitled with the name of the Alliance.

Members of an alliance may vote to add, delete, or edit the rules for their Alliance, that apply only to their alliance. These rules cannot contradict any part of the rest of the ruleset. Rules 5 and 6 apply to the voting rules for Alliance Proposals, as if the only players of Blognomic were Alliance members. Exceptions to this:

If a Warlord wishs to propose an Alliance proposal, they must first have a post with the title: [Alliance Name] Alliance Proposal.

The kind of thing I imagine in these rules; some sort of tax, a mutual defense clause, various rules for resolving spats. It would be neater if each alliance could have its own rules for Banishment and various voting rules for Alliances consolidated in these rules.

When I saw Alliance Rules cannot contradict normal rules, I just mean to say that they can't pass a rule that would give them 100000 thalers per day, put a Victory condition in their own Rules, or Rule that any proposal made by Alliance members automatically passes, crap like that.
What I say about Rules 5 and 6 applying to Alliance Proposals means that they do not count in the queue, nor can any other Warlord outside of the Alliance vote on them. It should be a nifty catch all.

Vetoed by Knightking for being exploitable - Failed by Chronos

Proposal: This Text is Meaningless

Add a new rule entitled Thalers:

Each Warlord automatically receives a certain amount of tax in thalers from their various holdings and investments. Their daily income income is tracked in a GNDT column along with their current amount of thalers. A Warlord with no daily income value has theirs set to an initial base of 10. An action that causes the daily income to be less than zero IS legitimate. This is the list of multipliers that change the base daily income and income total:

• A Warlord in one alliance (and one only) multiplies their base daily income by (1 + % of all Warlords that are in their alliance).
• When a Warlord leaves an alliance, 100X% of their total Thalers are removed, where X is (1/ number of Warlords in the alliance)
• A Warlord may spend 10 Thalers to increase their Offensive Power by two, and 20 Thalers to increase their Defensive Power by three.

Add a GNDT column called (Daily Income) / (Thalers) where (Income) is the daily income and (Thalers) is the total saved.

2-7 - Reached Quorum - Failed by Chronos - Wildcard's vote defered to Chronos', current Activity Leader

Notice: Edition

Since no rule seems to prevent me from doing so, I've edited Alliance Creation: Entrpy to include Mickey as one of the invitees.

One more...

Please say hail to Mickey, our newest Warlord.

Proposal: If I Go Down... [trivial]

SMASH! The halves of the log flew apart as Simon drove his battleaxe through the wood. "...I'm taking you with me," he finished.

If a rule named "Banishment" exists, add the following paragraph to the end:

If the victim was the Leader at any time in the past 24 hours, then the petitioner loses an additional 20 Reputation. They are also immediately removed from the Alliance if the attempt fails.

[You have to depose a Leader before banishing them, since they'll veto you otherwise - but even so, they weren't the Leader for nothing. This addition will require attempted mutinies to be carefully timed and organized. It's sort of like a leadership duel.]

1-3 Self Fail. Failed by Orson, October 19

Proposal: Trust, rev.2

Please, put down your weapons, friends, and be at ease! There is no place for suspicion at this table. We all made the same pledge of loyalty. It is the Outsiders we should be concerning ourselves with.

Add a rule called Trust,

Each Warlord has a Trust characteristic tracked in the GNDT, which indicates how much a Warlord is trusted by other Warlords, as well as how trusting or paranoid they themselves are.

The Trust is represented by 2 separated numbers of the form: #/#, where the first number is called "T-Pos" and the second number is "T-Neg". T-Pos can be zero or a positive number; T-Neg can be zero or a negative number. "T-Total" is not tracked in the GNDT, but can be derived by adding the two values together.

Once a day, a Warlord may either Entrust or Distrust a Warlord from another Alliance. Entrusting raises the T-Pos of both Warlords by 1; Distrusting lowers the T-Neg of both Warlords by 1.

[Now there can't be an Alliance mutual admiration society. I see this working as a kind of war of words between Alliances, until the real weapons come out, for example:
- Distrust ShadowSliver - remove your troops from my territory
- Distrust WildCard - I know all about your spy network
- Entrust Patio11 - thank you for defending my proposal
etc.]

7-0 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 19

Proposal : Ask The Audience

[ Probably a good idea to move the "have an Alliance vote on something" mechanic into its own rule, so that we can evoke it easily for lots of things. ]

Enact a new Rule, "Audiences":-

Warlords may request Audiences with any Alliance for any number of reasons define by other rules - these must be made in the form of entries with a subject of "Audience with [Alliance]: [Subject]". The poster is known as the Petitioner.

Any Warlord in the relevant Alliance may respond to the Petitioner by posting the vote icon FOR, AGAINST, DEFERENTIAL or VETO in comments to that entry. If there exists more than one vote from a single Warlord on a single Audiance, only the most recent of those votes is counted. If a Warlord leaves their Alliance, their vote no longer counts for that Alliance's Audiences.

A vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Leader. The vote will count as the same as the Leader's vote. The Leader itself cannot cast a vote of DEFERENTIAL. If there is no Leader, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention.

A vote of VETO may be performed only by the Leader, and instantly denies the request.

If there are at least half (rounding up) as many FOR as there are Warlords in the alliance, or if it is more than 48 hours old and more than half of its votes are FOR, then the Audience is considered approved.

If there are at least half (rounding up) as many AGAINST as there are Warlords in the alliance, or if it is more than 48 hours old and less than half of its votes are FOR, then the Audience is considered rejected.

Reword Rule 12 (Joining Alliances) to read:-

At any time a Warlord may attempt to join an Alliance by requesting an Audience with that Alliance, with a subject of "Application".

If the Audience is approved, any Warlord may add the Petitioner to the relevant Alliance, once. If the Warlord was already in an Alliance, he or she loses 10 Reputation and all other members of the Alliance lose 5.

If the Audience is rejected, the Petitioner loses 10 Reputation.

If "Banishment" passed, reword the Rule "Banishment" to read:-

At any time a Warlord may attempt to banish another Warlord from their own Alliance, by requesting an Audience with that Alliance, with a subject of "Banish [Warlord]".

If the Audience is approved, any Warlord may remove the victim from the Alliance, once. The victim loses 20 Reputation and remaining members of the Alliance lose 10.

If the Audience is rejected, the Petitioner loses 10 Reputation.

9-0 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 19

Proposal: Unificaion of Vote Rules [Trivial]

In the Alliances rule, change

Warlords who are not in an alliance are not considered Warlords for rules which do not have the word “Alliances” in the name.

to

Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for rules which do not have the word “Alliance”, or any inflection of it, in the name.

Rename the Joining Alliances rule to Alliance Requests, and rewrite it so it reads:

All Alliance Requests shall be listed in this rule and their definition must explicit the consequences of their Enactment and Failure. They are processed in the same way as Proposals are, except:
* Only Warlords in the named Alliance may cast votes on the Request. If a Warlord leaves the Alliance, their Vote no longer counts;
* A vote of DEFERENTIAL defers to the Alliance Leader's vote instead of the High Lord’s. The Leader himself cannot cast a vote of DEFERENTIAL. If there is no Leader, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention;
* The power of VETO may be performed only by the Leader, not by the High Lord, and instantly denies the request.
* Only Warlords in the named Alliance are counted when tallying Quorum, and only them may Enact or Fail the Request.
* Only the oldest pending Request of each Alliance may be tallied for Enactment or Failure. Pending Alliance Requests don’t block the tallying of pending Proposals and vice-versa.
* An Alliance Request definition, under this rule, may change other conditions of the Voting process.

At any time a Warlord may request to join an Alliance by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Alliance Join Request: [Alliance Name]”.
Alliance Join Requests are subject to Enactment or Failure as follow:
* If all conditions to Enactment are met, any Warlord in the Alliance may add the requesting Warlord to the Alliance. If the joining Warlord was already in an Alliance, he loses 10 Reputation and all other members of his former Alliance lose 5.
* If it failed, then the Request is considered Denied, and the requesting Warlord loses 10 Reputation.

If there is a Banishment rule, delete it and add to the end of the Alliance Requests rule:

At any time a Warlord may make request to Banish a member of the same Alliance, by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Alliance Banishment Request: [Alliance Name], [Target Warlord Name]".
Alliance Banishment Requests are subject to Enactment or Failure as follow:
* If all conditions to Enactment are met, any Warlord in the Alliance may replace the target Warlord's Alliance with "Exile". The target Warlord loses 20 Reputation and all members of the Alliance lose 10.
* If it failed, then the Request is considered Denied, and the requesting Warlord loses 10 Reputation.

The Admin enacting this Proposal shall rename all Alliance Requests that are pending when it passes to make them comply with the new Request naming rules.

0-2 Self-fail. Failed by Orson, October 19

Proposal: Leaving Alliances

A Warlord of more than 20 Reputation may voluntarily leave an alliance at any time for the cost of 20 Reputation. This cost is waived if the alliance being left is the Exiles. This clears the Warlord's Alliance status but does not, taken by itself, cause them to join a new Alliance.

No Warlord may be a member of more than one alliance at any given time.

You'll really appreciate that second bit if the Exile rule passes. Trust me. Otherwise, there will be multiple Alliances whose members may or may not be Exiles as well, mooting the point of having the faction at all if they achieve a quorum, because then all players will join Exile instantly to preserve the possibility of winning.

7-1 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 19. (Please note that there was no ruleset change specified - so none was made.)

Proposal: Respect the Meta-Rule [Trivial]

Strike the following line from Rule 11: Alliances.

Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for rules which do not have the word “Alliances” in the name.

Replace with the following line.

Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for the purposes of Rules 4, 5, and 6.

This fixes a few bugs -- most glaringly, the fact that non-allied Warlords are not Warlords for the purpose of Rule 1, the only Rule that makes the other rules binding on them. It maintains the strong incentive to join an alliance, because otherwise you cannot vote effectively.

7-1 Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson, October 19

Proposal: Cleanup [Trivial]

In rule 12 - Joining Alliances replace both instances of the word "Strain" with the word "Warlord".

7-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Leader of the Pack

He was the boss. We looked to him to tell us what to do.

Add a new rule called Chain of Command:

This rule takes precidence over Rule 5.

If a Warlord is a member of an Alliance, not the leader of that Alliance and that Alliance has a leader then a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts the same as the vote of the leader of that Alliance.

If the High Lord is a member of an Alliance, and not its leader, then they may vote DEFERENTIAL.

6-1 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Alliance Creation: Entropy

I'm sure many of us are disturbed by the level of unbridled Activity that's going on in the land at the moment - particularly that the High Lord is in a very vulnerable position, with Quorum fallen so low.

The guiding and moderate hand of Entropy is clearly required - all unaligned Warlords are hereby invited to further its cause.

Invite: Aaron
Invite: Chronos
Invite: Josh
Invite: Patio11
Invite: sctfn
Invite: ShadowSliver
Invite: Simon
Invite: Truman Capote

(And hmm, it looks like I have to specifically invite myself, as there's no clause about Warlords automatically joining their newly-created Alliance. Invite: Kevan!)

Another one joins the frail

Comrades, it seems there are many stray Warlords around there. This one is Patio11, and I found him waiting by the gates. I've checked his credentials and they are good. Welcome him if you please.

Proposal: Banishment [Trivial]

Our enemies can sense weakness - and I'm not just talking about military force, but any lack of resolve caused by internal bickering. I say we deal swiftly with those not fully committed to the goals of our glorious Alliance.

Add a rule called Banishment:

Warlords may make a request to Banish a member of the same Alliance, by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Banishment Request: [Alliance Name], [Target Warlord Name]". Any Warlord in the Alliance may cast their vote on the request by declaring it in the comments of the entry. Valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, DEFERENTIAL and VETO, which must be represented by appropriate icons. If there exists more than one Vote from a single Strain on a single Proposal, only the most recent of those Votes is counted. If a Strain leaves the alliance, their Vote no longer counts.

A vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Leader. The vote will count as the same as the Leader's vote. The Leader itself cannot cast a vote of DEFERENTIAL. If there is no Leader, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention.

A vote of VETO may be performed only by the Leader, and instantly denies the request.

If there are at least half (rounding up) as many FOR as there are Warlords in the alliance, or if it is more than 48 hours old and more than half of its votes are FOR, then the request is considered accepted, and any Warlord may replace the target Warlord's Alliance with "Exile". The target Warlord loses 20 Reputation and all members of the Alliance lose 10.

If there are at least half (rounding up) as many AGAINST as there are Warlords in the alliance, or if it is more than 48 hours old and less than half of its votes are FOR, then the request is considered denied, and the requesting Warlord loses 10 Reputation.

[This is essentially the same procedure as adding new members to an Alliance, but there is no way to avoid Reputation loss with such an internal struggle.]

Passed 2 to Orson, 2 to Truman for admin

Proposal: Exiles of the Alliances [Trivial]

My scouts report that although the tribes scattered in the wilderness are disorganized and weak they could potentially be a threat to the Alliance if their numbers grow. I've ordered regular patrols to keep an eye on the situation.

Create a rule called Exiles of the Alliances,

The word "Exile" is an allowed value for a Warlord's Alliance, but it is an Alliance with restrictions. It does not have a Leader, and it cannot have invitations or requests to join. Warlords who have "Exile" as their Alliance are called Exiles.

If the number of Exiles is less than Quorum, then Exiles cannot claim Victory, even if any other rule allows it.

If the number of Exiles is equal to Quorum, then no Warlord can claim Victory, even if any other rule allows it.

If the number of Exiles is more than Quorum, then Warlords who are not Exiles cannot claim Victory, even if any other rule allows it.

2-5 - Reached Quorum - Failed by Chronos

Proposal: Trust

An old Warlord once told me to keep my friends close, but my enemies even closer. Sometimes I wish I hadn't poisoned him.

Add a rule called Trust:

Each Warlord has a Trust characteristic tracked in the GNDT, which indicates how much a Warlord is trusted by other Warlords, as well as how trusting or paranoid they themselves are.

The Trust is represented by 2 separated numbers of the form: #/#, where the first number is called "T-Pos" and the second number is "T-Neg". T-Pos can be zero or a positive number; T-Neg can be zero or a negative number. "T-Total" is not tracked in the GNDT, but can be derived by adding the two values together.

Once a day, a Warlord may either Entrust or Distrust another Warlord. Entrusting raises the T-Pos of both Warlords by 1; Distrusting lowers the T-Neg of both Warlords by 1.

This amount may be doubled if the Warlord is Distrusting a Warlord from outside their Alliance, or Entrusting a Warlord from inside their Alliance.

When this Proposal is Enacted every Warlord's Trust is set to 0/0.

1-3 - Self-Fail. Failed by Orson, October 18

Proposal: Fluidic leadership [Trivial]

In the Alliances rule, delete:

, and may only change their vote once per day

Self-Kill - Failed by Chronos

Proposal: Military Power

Add a Military Powers rule:

Each Warlord has an Offensive Power and a Defensive Power, which is tracked by the GNDT.

A Warlord's Offensive or Defensive Power may not be a negative value. Any Action which would result in one or more Warlords having negative Offensive or Defensive Power is invalid and may not be done.

If an Action results in a Warlord having a fractionary Offensive and/or Defensive Power, round that value to the next lower integer number.

New Warlords start the game with both Military Powers at 100.

Give every Warlord Offensive Power of 100 and Defensive Power of 100.

Let's rock and roll

2-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Alliance Creation: Activity

Invite: Chronos
Invite: Orson
Invite: KnightKing
Invite: Mickey
Invite: sctfn
Invite: ShadowSliver
Invite: Simon
Invite: WildCard

Come on Comrades, join Activity and let's teach them a lesson or three...

Joining the fray

Comrades, please welcome our new compet... er, I say, our new Warlord: sctfn... Please don't ask me how it's pronounced...

Proposal: Trust

An old Warlord once told me to keep my friends close, but my enemies even closer. Sometimes I wish I hadn't poisoned him.

Add a rule called Trust:

Each Warlord has a Trust characteristic tracked in the GNDT, which indicates how much a Warlord is trusted by other Warlords, as well as how trusting or paranoid they themselves are.

The Trust is represented by 2 separated numbers of the form: #/#, where the first number is called "T-Pos" and the second number is "T-Neg". T-Pos can be zero or a positive number; T-Neg can be zero or a negative number. "T-Total" is not tracked in the GNDT, but can be derived by adding the two values together.

Once a day, a Warlord may either Entrust or Distrust another Warlord. Entrusting raises the T-Pos of both Warlords by 1; Distrusting lowers the T-Neg of both Warlords by 1.

This amount may be doubled if the Warlord is Distrusting a Warlord from outside their Alliance, or Entrusting a Warlord from inside their Alliance.

When this Proposal is Enacted every Warlord's Trust is set to 0/0.

Vetoed for being illegal under rule 11 - Failed by Chronos

Proposal: Alliances

These are dangerous times, and trying to stand independent is the fastest way to invite invasion.

Add an Alliances rule:

A Warlord’s alliance and vote for Leader are tracked in the GNDT.

Any Warlord may announce the creation of a new Alliance by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Alliance Creation: [Alliance Name]” in bold. Optionally any number of invites may be included in the format “Invite: [Warlord Name]”. Warlords who are invited in this way may immediately join the alliance without requesting permission. If the creating Warlord was already in an Alliance, creating an Alliance costs 10 Reputation.

Alliances have a Leader. All members of an Alliance must vote for a Leader when they join or create the Alliance, and may only change their vote once per day. At any time, if a Warlord has more votes than the Leader of their alliance or if their alliance does not have a Leader that Warlord may declare themselves Leader by adding a * to the end of their Alliance.

Warlords who are not in an alliance are not considered Warlords for rules which do not have the word “Alliances” in the name.

The following paragraph has no effect. Repeal this paragraph 48 hours after this proposal passes.

If any alliance has less than two members for over 24 hours, the alliance is dissolved and the Alliance of any remaining members is cleared.

Add a Joining Alliances rule:

At any time a Warlord may request to join an Alliance by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Alliance Join Request: [Alliance Name]”. Any Warlord in the Alliance may cast their vote on the request by declaring it in the comments of the entry. Valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, DEFERENTIAL and VETO, which must be represented by appropriate icons. If there exists more than one Vote from a single Strain on a single Proposal, only the most recent of those Votes is counted. If a Strain leaves the alliance, their Vote no longer counts.

A vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Leader. The vote will count as the same as the Leader's vote. The Leader itself cannot cast a vote of DEFERENTIAL. If there is no Leader, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention.

A vote of VETO may be performed only by the Leader, and instantly denies the request.

If there are at least half (rounding up) as many FOR as there are Warlords in the alliance, or if it is more than 48 hours old and more than half of its votes are FOR, then the request is considered accepted, and any Warlord may add the requesting Warlord to the Alliance. If the Warlord was already in an Alliance, he loses 10 Reputation and all other members of the Alliance lose 5.

If there are at least half (rounding up) as many AGAINST as there are Warlords in the alliance, or if it is more than 48 hours old and less than half of its votes are FOR, then the request is considered denied, and the requesting Warlord loses 10 Reputation.

It looks big, but a significant section is basically copied and pasted from the proposal voting rules.

Short Summery: Players have to be in an alliance, which after the first two days have to have multiple people in them. Within the alliance, players vote on a leader for the alliance (who currently doesn’t have any powers other than being able to veto requests to join the alliance). If a player wants to join an alliance, they post a request which the alliance members vote on. Naturally, defecting from alliances makes it harder for people to trust you and makes your old alliance look worse.

6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Ascension Address

I’ve called you together here today to announce my plans for finally ending this chaos that has continued since that foolish experiment in creating life…

For the last 20 years, we have fought each other, our people and the world itself trying to increase our own power that miniscule amount to stay ahead of the other Warlords, fending off assassins, hoping to live long enough to enjoy the small chunk of land we have carved out for ourselves.

Unified we could rule the world and crush the fools who dare to oppose us. Peace can only come through violence, and only if we stand together. Betrayal and backstabbing must not happen if we are ever to have stability. As such I propose we form an alliance to ensure none of us have the opportunity to do so. Naturally we must choose a leader, who will be given great power, as otherwise we could never agree on anything long enough to do anything otherwise…



Rules 11-19 are repealed. “Strain” becomes “Warlord”, “Control Strain” becomes “High Lord” and “Size” becomes “Reputation”