Caucus with New Democratic: Fusion with Evolution, become New Democratic

What the title said.

Reached party quorum; passed 1-0 (EV 4-0). Enacted 11/14 by Simon.

Caucus with Prosperity: Fusion with Exiles, become Prosperity

I want my Rolex...

2-0 Caucus approved. I present your 24-caret monogrammed Prosperity Rolex. (although we can't give you any more Confidence, since you are at the maximum.)

Proposal: Ministerial Institution

Add a rule Cabinet:

The Prime Minister is aided in his role by a Cabinet, which is comprised by various Portfolios. Each Portfolio is held by a Lord, named by the Prime Minister. No Portfolio may be held by more than one Lord at any given time. If a Portfolio exists but is not held by any Lord, the Prime Minister may exert the powers attributed to that Portfolio. The Portfolio or Portfolios held by a Lord, if any, are tracked by the GNDT.

The Prime Minister may grant any Lord a Cabinet Portfolio, by posting an entry with subject: “Cabinet member nomination: [Lord], [Portfolio]”. The Prime Minister may demote any Lord from a Cabinet Portfolio, by posting an entry with subject: “Cabinet member demotion: [Lord], [Portfolio]” or by nominating another Lord for that Portfolio.

All Cabinet Portfolios shall be defined by a rule, which shall establish the powers granted to the Lord holding each Portfolio.

A Lord holding a Portfolio is granted the status of Minister.

15-0 - Reached Quorum (7) - Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Ministerial Takeover

Add a rule Ministerial Takeover:

This rule doesn’t create a Victory Condition. If someone becomes Prime Minister under this rule, this is still the First Dynasty of Chronos. If Chronos is not the current Prime Minister, he may style himself H.L.Chronos, where H.L. stands for High Lord.

This rule repeals itself in the end of this Dynasty.

A Lord may Request to become Prime Minister if he meets all these conditions:

* He is the Speaker of Party with at least 3 Lords;
* The totaled number of Electoral Votes held by Lords in his Party is greater than one third of the totaled number of Electoral Votes held by all Lords in the game;
* He is not currently the candidate in a Request to become Prime Minister;
* He is not precluded to post a Request to become Prime Minister by any rule;

If a Lord meets all conditions required to do so, he may post an entry with subject: "Request to become Prime Minister". In the body of the entry the Candidate may say why he should become the new Prime Minister.

All Lords may cast their Electoral Votes in the comments of an entry with a Request to become Prime Minister. These Votes are not binding, and their function is to signal the current Prime Minister about the popularity of the Candidate. No Electoral Vote may be cast on a Request to become Prime Minister that has already been Granted or Denied by the Prime Minister.

After 24 hours of the posting of a Request to become Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister may Grant or Deny the Request. After 48 hours of the posting of a Request to become Prime Minister, if the current Prime Minister has neither Granted nor Denied it, it is considered Denied and any Lord may update the Gamestate to apply any consequences of a Denial as if he were the Prime Minister. The consequences of either Grating or Denying of a Request to become Prime Minister may be applied only once to the Gamestate.

If more than half of the Electoral Votes cast on the Request are FOR it and the current Prime Minister Grants the Request, he is entitled to take up to 5 Confidence from each Lord who had cast votes AGAINST it and distribute that Confidence freely between any Lord or Lords who have voted FOR it.

If at least half of the Electoral Votes cast on the Request are AGAINST it and the current Prime Minister Grants the Request anyway, he must lose 5 Confidence for each AGAINST Electoral Vote it has. The current Prime Minister may not Grant the Request this way if he has not enoug Confidence to lose.

If more than half of the Electoral Votes cast on the Request are FOR it and the current Prime Minister Denies the Request anyway, he must lose 5 Confidence for each FOR Electoral Vote it has. The current Prime Minister may not Deny the Request this way if he has not enoug Confidence to lose.

If at least half of the Electoral Votes cast on the Request are AGAINST it and the current Prime Minister Denies the Request, he is entitled to take up to 5 Confidence from each Lord who had cast votes FOR it and distribute that Confidence freely between any Lord or Lords who have voted AGAINST it.

The current Prime Minister may not Grant or Deny a Request to become Prime Minister if there is an older such Request without Granting or Denial.


Upon the Granting of a Request to become Prime Minister, the Candidate becomes the new Prime Minister immediately after the announcing of the Grant.

Upon the Denying of a Request to become Prime Minister, the Candidate is precluded to post another such Request until 72 hours has passed since the announcing of the Denial.

13-0 - Reached Quorum (6) - Enacted by Chronos

Notice: Edition

I've edited rule 20 to comply with Proposal: Early and Often, changing all occurences of "held" to "cast". We have been already complying with the behavior described by that Proposal, anyways. If someone disagrees, please CfJ.

Note: Admin away

I'll be away from a net connection until Sunday (more than a day without BlogNomic, gasp!). Other Admins will have to move the queue forward (currently stuck on "Clarifying Editing Rules") and initiate Patio11 into the Executive Branch.

Knightking, I've returned the Speakership to you. Feel free to use the Signing Bonus to reward recruits to Prosperity, but I don't mind if you repeal it.

Caucus with VRWC: Create Protocol: Speaker for Life

Speaker for Life
VRWC
Speaker Selection
A Lord in the VRWC is Eligible for elevation to Speaker of the VRWC if all of the following conditions are met: his name contains the string "Pat" AND there is only one Lord in VRWC whose name contains the string "Pat".


Speaker, I was wondering, if I disagreed with the direction your administration has been taking, what with us not having more than our starting Electoral Vote and all, how would I go about unseating you?
*gunshot*
Any more bright ideas, staffers? No? Back to work. I've got a Girl Scout troop coming in in half an hour, someone clean this mess up. Can't expose the constituents to the rigors of politics, after all.

Announcement: Come Join Prosperity

We give a rolex watch to every Lord that joins us!

Proposal: We Can All Trust The Loony One [Trivial]

Patio becomes an admin on the enactment of this proposal.

18-0. Reached Quorum (8). Enacted by Chronos

Admin wisely.

Proposal: Leave No Dictator Behind [trivial]

At a press conference:

Reporter: Why does Speaker Patio's last proposal call an AGAINST vote a NO vote?
VRWC Press Secretary: No one knows, but we're too afraid to ask him. Oops, did I say that out loud?

If there exists a reference to a NO vote in the rule Corruption, change that the word "NO" to "AGAINST".

15-0. Reached Quorum (7). Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Editing Nightmare

I'm trying to remove all member/Member ambiguities, without changing the intentions of each rule. Did I succeed?

In Joining Parties replace:

If the Caucus is approved, any Lord may add the Petitioner to the relevant Party, once. If the Lord was already in a Party, he or she loses 10 Confidence and all other Members of the Party lose 5.

with:

If the Caucus is approved, any Lord may add the Petitioner to the relevant Party, once. If the Lord was already in a Party, he or she loses 10 Confidence and all other Lords in that Party lose 5.

In Leaving Parties replace:

No Lord may be a Member of more than one Party at any given time.

with:

No Lord may belong to more than one Party at any given time.

In Banishment replace:

The victim loses 20 Confidence and remaining Members of the Party lose 10.

with:

The victim loses 20 Confidence and remaining Lords in that Party lose 10.

In Supporters replace:

If at anytime a party has more than 45% of the population supporting them, every member of that party may gain 10 confidence.

with:

If at anytime a party has more than 45% of the population supporting them, every Lord in that party may gain 10 confidence.

In Party Fusion replace:

Any member of either Party 1 or Party 2 may block this request by casting an AGAINST vote in the Caucus.

with:

Any Lord belonging to either Party 1 or Party 2 may block this request by casting an AGAINST vote in the Caucus.

and replace:

If the Caucus is approved, all members of both Party 1 and Party 2 become members of a Party named [New Name], as specified in the Request topic, and any Lord in either original Party may adjust the GNDT to reflect that condition. The Lord doing so may transfer to himself, once, 5 Confidence from the Speaker of the resulting Party. No Confidence penalty shall be deduced for any Member leaving his original Party this way.

with:

If the Caucus is approved, all Lords belonging to both Party 1 and Party 2 now belong to a Party named [New Name], as specified in the Request topic, and any Lord in either original Party may adjust the GNDT to reflect that condition. The Lord doing so may transfer to himself, once, 5 Confidence from the Speaker of the resulting Party. No Confidence penalty shall be deducted for any Lord leaving his original Party this way.

16-0. Reached Quorum (8). Enacted by Chronos

Caucus with Prosperity: Create Protocol: Prosperity Signing Bonus

Signing Bonus
Prosperity
Party Reward Template
If all of the following conditions are met: a Lord has successfully Joined Prosperity, then the Speaker of Prosperity may transfer a positive amount of Confidence less than the total amount possessed from any Lord in Prosperity to any other Lord.

[In trying out the protocols, I have to say I find them confusing. I wanted to make a protocol which would allow me to transfer 20 Confidence from myself to new members of Prosperity, but the Party Reward Template only allowed me 2 choices for [reward] which it seems I have to use word-for-word (it is quoted, and rule text indicates I can only replace bracketed text). As a result, my protocol is much broader and more abusive than I want!]

Knightking, you'll just have to trust me that I only plan to transfer Confidence from myself to the new arrivals. I'll wait for you to vote on this protocol before passing it, even though it only requires one of us to do so. If you vote against, I'll change my vote to fail it. I don't want any distrust in our party.

2-0 Caucus Passed. Enacted by Orson Nov. 11

Call for Judgement: Glossary Tweaks

Change the first entry in the Glossary [Stripping out the last reference to individual blogs.]:

References to "a day" (as an entity rather than a duration, eg. "Sunday") refer to that day in the timezone of the BlogNomic blog.

Add an entry to the Glossary list:

A keyword defined by a rule supercedes the normal english usage of the word. A keyword defined in this glossary supercedes that defined by a rule. (eg. A rule specifying "Bananas are Blue" cannot be overruled by posting a dictionary definition or a photo of a banana, but a rule specifying "every day is Sunday" will be overruled by the glossary entry above.)

Change the word "Member" to "Partisan" in this line in the rule Parties:

Any Lord in a Party and not Speaker of that Party is referred to as a Member.

0-6. Call for Judgement Failed. Orson Nov 14.

Request for Admin Attention

We're a couple of days behind in adminning proposals. I would propose myself to be an admin, except my number of proposals is capped because I've got two Trivials and a non-Trivial outstanding in the queue that I haven't self-killed. In fact, some of those are likely technically illegal because I've got other self-killed proposals which are technically still pending -- I'm not the only person in this boat. To make you, the admin's, life easier, I've collected the Proposals which are ripe for plucking and told you what their status can be modified to. All you have to do is reap the vast Confidence rewards. Come on, you know you want it.

Top of the Queue:
Proposal: We Need A Seating Arrangement Pronto -- Self kill by Patio
Proposal: Negative Voting [Trivial] -- Self kill by Shadowsliver
Proposal: Staying Undecided [Trivial] -- has reached quorum with a unanimous vote for passage (14-0 EV, 8 Lords represented)
Proposal: Negative Voting 2 [Trivial] -- Prime Minister vetoed it for mootness
Proposal: Its Not A Kickback, Its Just a Kick -- Prime Minister vetoed it for unfairness
Proposal: Campaign Reform -- Prime Minister vetoed it for reasons too complicated to go into here
Proposal: Protocols, take 2 -- Self kill by Chronos
Proposal: Each Party Should Choose its Own Way to Choose its Speaker [Trivial] -- Self kill by Chronos
Proposal: Supporters and Fusions [Trivial] -- Has reached quorum, passes unanimously, 13-0 EV, 6 Lords represented.
Proposal: Anti-Discrimination Law -- Stop here, you mad adminning machine, it doesn't meet the requirements yet.

Thats, by my count, 6 Fails and two Trivial passages which means 16 Confidence for you.

Call for Judgment: Ruleset & Glossary Modification

Change the name of Rule 8 to Gamestate Tracking, and add this text to the beginning of it:

Proposals, Calls for Judgement, and other official posts, as well as specific gamestate information, shall be tracked by the BlogNomic blog at http://blogspot.blognomic.com. Any Lord may post to the blog at any time, but may only make official posts to the blog when the ruleset allows it. Posts following the format specified by a rule are considered official posts.

If nobody else has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed, otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the ruleset. The Admin processing an official post is allowed to append to the post to reflect its new status.

A non-official post may not through editing of the blog be changed into an official post.

Voting and comments are tracked by backblog, accessible through the link at the bottom of every post.

Simplify the last Glossary Entry to read [since this information has been moved to rule 8]:

"Posts" and "comments" refer only to those made to the BlogNomic weblog at blognomic.blogspot.com.

3-3. Timed out. Call for Judgement failed to get more than half FOR Votes. Failed by Orson Nov 14.

Wiki Histories

I've started moving the Dynastic Histories into a Wiki, at Chronos's suggestion - I've actually given BlogNomic its own Wiki, now, at kevan.org/bnwiki, and have moved the Ruleset across accordingly.

To start things off, I've transferred the First Dynasty of Myke - any Admin who want to work on the other histories might like to use this as a template; it's really just a matter of copying wodges of text across, and adding any hyperlinks in Wiki format (square brackets containing the URL, followed by a space, followed by the link text).

I'll give the Wiki a less default design, as well, now that it's not just the ruleset. Sorry to have been too distracted to keep the static histories up to date, lately. As with the rest of the Nomic, Dynastic Histories really should be something that don't bottleneck down to a single person.

Proposal: Abort / Retry / Ignore? [Trivial]

[ Bring me my sharpest axe. The only useful opening clause I can think of that doesn't grant slightly-unnerving admin powers is that "Players are encouraged to keep all future Electoral-Vote modifiers as part of this rule". But that just seems patronising. ]

Reword Rule 21 (Electoral Gain), in its entirety, to:-

At any time, if a Lord has more than 100 Confidence, that Lord may spend ALL his current Confidence and increase his Electoral Votes by 1.

The Speaker of a Party may transfer any number of his or her Electoral Votes to other members of that Party, provided that no Electoral Votes have been transferred within that Party within the past 24 hours.

If the majority of vote-comments for this proposal were accompanied by the phrase "Patronise me!", then add the following paragraph to the start of the rule:-

(Lords are encouraged to propose all future Electoral-Vote modifiers as amendments to this rule.)

17-0. Reached Quorum (8). Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: No Kick-Forwards [Trivial]

Add the following paragraph to the rule Corruption:

No exposing of kickbacks may take place after the proposing Lord has cast a NO vote on his own proposal (i.e. a self-kill) or after the Prime Minister has VETOed the proposal.

I was sort of worried about someone unintentionally doing a kickback, SKing the proposal, and then having people pile on just because they could (with an electoral vote potentially at stake, thats a fairly serious worry). This closes that loophole. Note that if you SK something after the majority of votes on the proposal already contain an exposure you still get Scandalized, so this can't be abused to avoid the Corruption/Scandal rules.

15-0. Reached Quorum (7). Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Scandals Have Teeth [Trivial]

In the rule Scandal replace the text

The Lord posting the Scandal must reduce the Confidence of the Lord named by half.

with

The Lord posting the Scandal must reduce the Confidence of the Lord named by half. If this would reduce the Confidence of that Lord to below 10, the Lord posting the Scandal may, exactly once, transfer one Electoral Vote from the Lord named in the Scandal to himself, if the Lord named in the Scandal has more than one Electoral Vote.

No reason Scandal should cost less than just failing the proposal -- it needs to have some teeth or people will be able to Scandal for free from low confidence.

14-5. Reached Quorum (7). Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Clarifying Editing Rules [Trivial]

Add to the end of Proposals:

A Proposal may not be edited after someone has commented on it.

I was having difficulty finding this rule, and if I were looking for it, would expect it to be here.

4-11. May not be enacted without COV. Failed by Chronos

Proposal: Protocol

Add a new rule Protocols as follows:

At any time a Lord may attempt to create or repeal a Protocol inside his own Party, by requesting a Caucus with that Party, with a topic of "[Create/Repeal] Protocol: [Title]".

If the Caucus is approved, any Admin may append or delete the text of the approved or repealed Protocol to the end of this rule. Upon doing so, the Admin may transfer to himself up to 5 Confidence from the Petitioner. The text of all Protocols shall at all times be found on this rule and comply with it.

All Protocols must be written in one of the following templates. Except as explicitly outlined below, no Protocol may contradict any other rule not marked as allowing such a contradiction by a Protocol, cause any change of gamestate, cause any Rule to become edited, cause a declaration of victory, or allow any action not specifically authorized by a non-Protocol section of the ruleset.

Any text in the following templates enclosed in square brackets must be replaced when the Protocol is proposed. The only legal replacements are described below. In all cases, [Party] must be replaced by the name of the Party the Protocol applies to, and no other text, except for the word "the" before the Party name if desired for esthetic reasons.

Speaker Selection Template:

A Speaker Selection Protocol must start with the words "A Lord in [Party] is Eligible for elevation to Speaker of [Party] if all of the following conditions are met: [conditions] ".

Party Discipline Template:

A Party Discipline Protocol must be of the form : "If a Lord in the [Party] fulfills all of the following conditions : [conditions], then [Enforcer] may remove the aforementioned Lord from [Party] by setting his Party entry in the GNDT to "-". If there is a penalty specified elsewhere in the ruleset for leaving a Party, [Enforcer] must apply this penalty after removing the affected Lord." This type of Protocol is allowed to change gamestate in only the following two ways: the removal of the Lord who fulfills the [conditions], and the penalties for removal described elsewhere in the rule set applied to that same Lord. There only valid values for Enforcer are "the Speaker of [Party]" or a named Lord who is in the Party the protocol applies to. The Enforcer must be a member of the Party the Protocol applies to at the instant of enforcement.

Party Reward Template:

A Party Reward Protocol must be of the form: "If all of the following conditions are met: [conditions], then [Enforcer] may [reward]." Only one reward is allowed per Protocol. The only legal values of Reward are "transfer an Electoral Vote from a Lord in [Party] who has more than one Electoral Vote to any other Lord." or "transfer a positive amount of Confidence less than the total amount possessed from any Lord in [Party] to any other Lord." Protocols of this type are allowed to modify gamestate only in the [reward] segment, as provided above.

Party Realignment Template:

A Party Realignment must be of the for: "If the Speaker of [Party] has greater than 1% Perc and all of the following conditions are met: [conditions], then the Speaker of [Party] may transfer 1% Perc to the Speaker of any Party other than [Party]." No gamestate changes are allowed to result from this Template other than the transfer of 1% of Perc.

All Protocols are to be listed below, in the following format:

Protocol Name
Party Name
Template Type
Text of Template altered as specified above.

Change the following in Rule 11 -- Parties from:

At any time, if the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming a Lord for Speakership exceeds the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming the current Speaker, any Lord in the effected Party may change the Party’s Speakership.

to

At any time, if a Party has no Speaker Selection Protocol in place, then if the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming a Lord for Speakership exceeds the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming the current Speaker, any Lord in the effected Party may change the Party’s Speakership.

If a Party has a Speaker Selection Protocol in place, at any time, any Lord in that Party may change the Speaker of his Party to be one of any Lords in that Party made Eligible by that Protocol.

This puts the authority to change Speaker in the Party rule, NOT in the Protocol, which is important because it means the Protocol can't actually do anything by itself. It preserves the default option for choosing a Speaker in the event that there is no Speaker to the Party.

Edit Rule 21 -- Electoral Gain as follows:

Change the text

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party has gained an Electoral Vote

to

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party has gained an Electoral Vote by means other than the enforcement of a Protocol

in all instances where it occurs (note to admin: should be three).

Add the paragraph

Electoral Votes may be transferred as provided for in legal Party Reward Protocols.

to the end of the rule.

This legalizes use of the Protocols, which otherwise hits the first paragraph of Rule 21, and stops an infinite EV exploit which I probably should have left in there to help myself because none of you are still reading the little bits, right?

Anyhow, this Proposal is like network security. The guiding principle is to ban everything and then specifically allow only actions which can be proven to be non-harmful. Note that this Proposal will allow people to change Speakers at will, and shuffle EV/Confidence at will subject to to the limits, which may not be desireable behavior.

If this Proposal passes Chronos gets the Confidence boost for passing a non-Trivial Proposal, and Patio does not receive that Confidence boost.

Reached quorum; passed 6-1 (EV 14-3). Enacted 11/11 by Simon; +10 to Chronos, +5 to Simon. +3 Percent to Patio11 since he only mentioned Confidence. He lost the extra EV, though.

Proposal: Clarifying Rule 20 (Trivial)

"But that says THOSE! Who's vote counts, and how much? These or those?"

"So, what do you expect us to do? Put the nation on hold while we figure out if what happened in Florida was legal?"



The first and second sentences in rule 20 should be corrected and changed to:

"This rule supersedes the second and third paragraphs of rule 6. Instead of using the procedure delineated there, these shall be used:"

Changed to clarify the first and second sentences.

8-0 (17-0 EV). Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: Party Platforms

Add a new rule, Platforms:

A Party Platforms should summarize the primary mission of a Party and detail events which modify the Confidence of Lords belonging to that Party:

Prosperity Plaform: Economic Development
Once per day, if the average Confidence of all Lords exceeds 75, every member of the Prosperity Party may gain 3 Confidence.

(other party platforms go here)

The Confidence modifications specified in the Platforms may not be used if there are fewer than 3 Platforms defined.

[I'm just making a Prosperity Platform as a starting point. I'm open to modifications. That's why this rule is inert and non-threatening until more Parties have signed on.]

6-1 (12-2) Reached Quorum. Patio11 deferred to Chronos. Enacted by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: Anti-Discrimination Law

Add a rule, Discrimination:

This rule takes precedence over rules 5 and 6.

When Votes are tallied, if any effect in the Proposal or resulting Rule will be applied to a single Lord, the Proposal is called Discriminatory. In this case, the author does not get the usual implied FOR Vote, and any Vote cast by the author or members of their Party are ignored, and an AGAINST Vote by any Lord singled out by the Discriminatory Proposal is considered the same as a Prime Minister Veto.

As the esteemed speaker for the VRWC pointed out, there are many ways to avoid the letter of the law, and this proposal is no exception. Work-arounds I can think of off the top of my head: targetting 2 Lords with the same effect, setting a timebomb in the rules which doesn't target a single Lord immediately. Despite these flaws, I hope you agree that we have to begin somewhere. We cannot expect the Prime Minister to bear this responsibility alone.

Self Fail. Failed by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: Supporters and Fusions [Trivial]

Add to the Party Fusion rule:

The Speaker of the new Party shall keep the Percentual (Perc) of Supporters his former Party had before the Fusion.

Explicitly says what was implied before: the Supporters of the party with less Electoral Votes are lost after fusion. If there is a tie of EV’s, the Supporters of Party 2 will remain.

6-0 (12-0 EV) Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: Each Party Should Choose its Own Way to Choose its Speaker [Trivial]

If there is not a rule named Protocols, this Proposal has no effect and no Lord shall be given any reward or penalty for its passing or failing.

In the end of the Parties rule, delete the following text:

At any time, if the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming a Lord for Speakership exceeds the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming the current Speaker, any Lord in the effected Party may change the Party’s Speakership.

If a Party has currently no Speaker, any Lord of that Party may change the Party’s Speakership so it goes to the Lord with the higher totaled number of Electoral Votes of Lords naming him.

In that same rule, create a sub-title named Speakership Determination, with this text:

The procedure under this title may be superseded by a Party Protocol

At any time, if the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords naming a Lord for Speakership of his Party exceeds the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming the current Speaker of that Pàrty, any Lord in the effected Party may change the Party’s Speakership.

If a Party has currently no Speaker, any Lord of that Party may change the Party’s Speakership so it goes to the Lord with the higher totaled number of Electoral Votes of Lords naming him.

Self Failed. Failed by Orson Nov 11

Proposal: Protocols, take 2

Here we go again. This rule, per si, doen't allow any procedure to be altered by a Protocol.

Create a rule Protocols:

At any time a Lord may attempt to create or repeal a Protocol inside his own Party, by requesting a Caucus with that Party, with a topic of "[Create/Repeal] Protocol: [Title]".

The Prime Minister may cast a Veto to a Caucus creating a Protocol in any Party, as if he would the Speaker of that Party.

If the Caucus is approved, any Admin may append or delete the text of the approved or repealed Protocol to the end of this rule. Upon doing so, the Admin may transfer to himself up to 5 Confidence from the Petitioner. The text of all Protocols shall at all times be found on this rule and comply with it.

If the Caucus is rejected, the Petitioner loses 10 Confidence.

The text of a Protocol must specify the following points, and only these points:

* The name of the Protocol.
* The Party it applies to.
* Who is the Enforcer of the Protocol.
* Conditions that trigger the enforcing of the Protocol.
* Alterations, if any, in one or more procedures governed by a rule, other than the Protocols rule, that explicitly permits a Protocol to alter those procedures.
* Limits, if any, of applicability of the Protocol.
* The powers the Enforcer is entitled to.

The only powers a Protocol may entitle the Enforcer to are:

* Take any positive amount of Confidence and/or Electoral Votes from any group of Lords which are Members or the Speaker of his Party and distribute up to the same amount taken from these Stats to the same Stat of any group of Lords, even if in other Party.
* Change the Party affiliation of a Lord in his Party to "-" (meaning no Party), applying to that Lord any legal penalties for leaving a Party.
* Take any positive amount of the Supporter Perc of his Party’s Speaker and transfer it to any group of Speakers of other Parties.

No Protocol shall be enacted which alters, supersedes or otherwise modifies a procedure defined by a rule that doesn’t explicitly permits a Protocol to alter those procedures.

A Protocol may not be enforced in the period of 24 hours within its enactment. During that time, the Prime Minister may choose to Veto that Protocol, by applying the Imperial Seal to the comments of the Blog entry with the Caucus which created that Protocol. Any Admin may then delete the text of that Protocol from this rule and transfer up to 5 Confidence to himself from the Prime Minister.

If a Party ceases to exist, all Protocols from that Party may be deleted from this rule by any Admin.

Self Failed. Failed by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: Campaign Reform

There's dirty politics afoot. Let's appeal to the common man, to strike down this tyrannical form of punishment.

Enact a new rule, Campaign Reform:

Lords may not have their EV's negatively adjusted by rules that specifically mention them by name. Upon passage of this rule, all rules that negatively adjust EV's by name are repealed, and the EV's are returned to their before negative adjustment status (plus or minus any EVs caused by non specifically mentioning rules. )

Furthermore, no rule may be enacted that specifically targets a party or lord for negative EV adjustments.

Prime Minister Veto. Failed by Orson Nov 11.

Clarification: Members vs members

There is a line in rule 11 - Parties: "Any Lord in a Party and not Speaker of that Party is referred to as a Member."

Does this mean Speakers aren't included when we indicate, "members of a Party?" Is there a difference between a Member and a member?

We use capitalized keywords by convention, but it might be good to make a glossary entry explaining that a keyword supercedes the normal english usage of a word.

Proposal: Its Not A Kickback, Its Just a Kick

So, Chief of Staff, what are we going to do about the New Democratic Party's six electoral votes?

Well, the Assassin is still paid off to the end of the month, Warlord.

You fool! I've told you three times today, call me Speaker, and get with the program. We don't need to kill the man and get our hands dirty. Lets let the democratic process do it for us.

All Lords gain one electoral vote on the passage of this proposal.
If Simon's vote evaluates to NO when this proposal's vote is tabulated, Simon's electoral votes are reduced to a total of two and Jarrods electoral votes are reduced to a total of one.
This Proposal takes precedence over the restriction in the first paragraph of Rule 21.

Prime Minister Veto. Failed by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: Negative Voting 2 [Trivial]

Adds to the end of Voting Record:

Every 24 hours, if a Lord has a negative General Voting Record, they lose 5 Confidence. If they have a negative Party Voting Record, their party loses 2% of the supporters.

If the General or Party Voting Record of the speaker of a Party is negative, any other Lord in that party may become speaker of that party. The speaker of that party cannot change for 18 hours.

Something has to be done with voting record! The first paragraph is to be enforced by anyone.

Prime Minister Veto. Failed by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: Staying Undecided [Trivial]

Since I couldn't decide who I'd conspire with to pull off this loophole, I decided to call attention to it and get it closed instead. Basically, this'll keep a group of Maverick Lords from simultaneously killing their parties, starting a new one, and getting a whole bunch of unclaimed Percent.

If there exists a sentence in the rule Supporters reading

If there was no previous Speaker, then the Percent is equal to 100 minus the sum total of all existing Parties Percent values.

then reword it as follows:

If there was no previous Speaker, then the Percent is equal to either 100 minus the sum total of all existing Parties Percent values or the Percent value of the Party with the highest Percent, whichever is smaller.

In other words, if the Fred Party has 20% and the Sandwich Party has 25%, then I can only get 25% by starting a new Party, as opposed to the ridiculous 55% I'd get with the loophole.

8-0 (14-0 EV) Reached Quorum. Passed by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: Negative Voting [Trivial]

Adds to the end of Voting Record:

Every 24 hours, if a Lord has a negative General Voting Record, they lose 5 Confidence. If they have a negative Party Voting Record, their party loses 2% of the supporters.

If the General or Party Voting Record of the speaker of a Party is negative, any other Lord in that party may become speaker of that party. The speaker of that party cannot change for 18 hours.

Something has to be done with voting record! The first paragraph is to be enforced by anyone.

0-3 (0-5 EV) Self Fail. Failed by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal: We Need A Seating Arrangement Pronto

Add a new rule, Block Politics, as follows:

All Parties belong to a Block, tracked by the GNDT. All Lords must have a Block entry -- the Block entry of the Speaker of a Party determines what Block the Party is in. No Member may have a Block entry different than his Speaker. If at any time a Member has a Block entry different than his Speaker, any Lord may change the entry to be in accordance with the appropriate Speaker's entry.

There are only three legal entries for Block: Liberal, Conservative, And Center.

Any time a new Party is created the first Lord who is Speaker of that Party may change his Block entry, once, within 24 hours.

Repeal this paragraph 24 hours after enactment. All Lords may change their Block entry once. All Lords are set to the Center block on enactment of this proposal.

A Block is said to have voted Unanimously on a proposal if at least one of its members casts a vote which evaluates to NO and no members cast a vote which evaluates to YES, or if at least one of its members casts a vote which evaluates to YES and no members cast a vote which evaluates to NO.

A Lord is said to have Defected from his Block if he is Liberal, the Conservative block has voted Unanimously, and his vote evaluates to the same as that of the Conservative block, OR he is Conservative, the Liberal Block has voted Unanimously, and his vote evaluates to the same as that of the Liberal Block.

The following bonuses and penalties apply only to non-Trivial proposals.

If the Center block votes Unanimously, all Center Lords lose 5 Confidence.
If the Conservative block votes Unanimously, all Conservative Lords gain 5 Confidence.
If the Liberal block votes Unanimously, all Liberal Lords gain 5 Confidence.
Any Lord who Defects loses 5 Confidence.

The above described Confidence changes take place immediately on enactment and are the responsibility of the enacting admin.

1-5 (1-9 EV) Self failed. Failed by Orson Nov 11.

Proposal : Keep It Complex, Stupid

[ Reproposing "Electoral Simplification" without deleting the clause that Chronos wanted kept. And rewording it to specifically explain what it means, as well. Bring me my slightly sharper axe, and some masking tape. ]

Reword Rule 21 (Electoral Gain), in its entirety, to:-

(If any other Rule defines a way to gain or lose Electoral Votes, then any Admin may amend the ruleset so that the mechanism is described in this rule as well as or instead of the other Rule, provided that this would have no effect on the mechanism's behaviour.)

At any time, if a Lord has more than 100 Confidence, that Lord may spend ALL his current Confidence and increase his Electoral Votes by 1.

The Speaker of a Party may transfer any number of his or her Electoral Votes to other members of that Party, provided that no Electoral Votes have been transferred within that Party within the past 24 hours.

2-5 (4-10 EV) Could not be Enacted without a change of Vote. Failed by Orson Nov 11

Proposal: What's that Smell?

Create a rule called Corruption:

If a Proposal specifies Gamestate changes that act specifically on each Lord based on how they voted on a Proposal, it contains a Kickback.

When voting on a Proposal containing a Kickback, a Lord may expose it by including the word "kickback" in the comments with their vote.

When the Votes are tallied, if the votes exposing the Kickback outnumber those that don't, the Proposal's author and any Lords who did not expose the Kickback become involved in a Scandal.

Create a rule called Scandal:

If a Lord is involved in a Scandal any Lord may make a post with the subject "Scandal: [Lord name]". The body of the post must include a description of the trigger event causing the named Lord to be involved in the Scandal. If that same event has already been described in an existing Scandal for the named Lord, the Scandal has already been made public and cannot be posted.

The Lord posting the Scandal must reduce the Confidence of the Lord named by half.

On Enactment, every Lord who Voted FOR this Proposal gains 10 Confidence.

Don't worry, you can't get exposed yet, so please accept this gift. It's the least I could do. One hand washes the other, right?

8-0 (13-0 EV) Reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson Nov 10. All who voted FOR given +10 Confidence.

Proposal: The Undecided Voters [Trivial]

In the Supporters rule replace the line:

Each Party begins with 15% of the population supporting them.

with:

Upon selection of a new Speaker, that Lord assumes the same Percent as the previous Speaker of their Party. If there was no previous Speaker, then the Percent is equal to 100 minus the sum total of all existing Parties Percent values.

[This will prevent the annoying grab of 15% of automatic support any time a new Party is formed.]
7-0 (11-0 EV) reached Quorum. Enacted by Orson Nov 10.

Proposal: Protocols

This is a revamp of our old Tributes rule and creates a sort of "nomic within" mechanics. Notice that the trigger of the Protocol may be something like "whenever a Member casts a vote in discordance with the Speaker's vote", efectively creating means of enforcing Party lines. The last paragraph is intended to avoid the creation of exploits within a small Party, at least without the cumplicity of the Prime Minister.

In the Parties rule, move the following text to the end of that rule, under a sub-title called Speakership Determination:

Parties have a Speaker. Any Lord in a Party and not Speaker of that Party is referred to as a Member. All Lords within a Party must name a Lord, within that Party, which they want to be the Speaker, and they may only change that nomination once per day. At any time, if the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming a Lord for Speakership exceeds the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming the current Speaker, any Lord in the effected Party may change the Party’s Speakership.

If a Party has currently no Speaker, any Lord of that Party may change the Party’s Speakership so it goes to the Lord with the higher totaled number of Electoral Votes of Lords naming him.

Create a rule Protocols:

At any time a Lord may attempt to create or repeal a Protocol inside his own Party, by requesting a Caucus with that Party, with a topic of "[Create/Repeal] Protocol: [Title]".

The Prime Minister may cast a Veto to a Caucus creating a Protocol in any Party, as if he would the Speaker of that Party.

If the Caucus is approved, any Admin may append or delete the text of the approved or repealed Protocol to the end of this rule. Upon doing so, the Admin may transfer to himself up to 5 Confidence from the Petitioner. The text of all Protocols shall at all times be found on this rule and comply with it.

If the Caucus is rejected, the Petitioner loses 10 Confidence.

The text of a Protocol must specify the following points, and only these points:

* The name of the Protocol.
* The Party it applies to.
* Who is the Enforcer of the Protocol.
* Conditions that trigger the enforcing of the Protocol.
* Restrictions, if any, to the first Paragraph of rule 16 (Caucuses), saying when a Lord is able to petition the Party this Protocol applies to.
* Alterations, if any, in the procedure governed by the other Paragraphs of rule 16 (Caucuses), when a Caucus is being tallied in the Party this Protocol applies to.
* Alterations, if any, in the procedure governed by the Paragraphs of rule 11 (Parties) under sub-title "Speakership Determination" when the Speakership of the Party this Protocol applies to is being determined.
* Limits, if any, of applicability of the Protocol.
* The powers the Enforcer is entitled to.

The only powers a Protocol may entitle the Enforcer to are:

* Take any positive amount of Confidence and/or Electoral Votes from any group of Lords which are Members or the Speaker of his Party and distribute up to the same amount taken from these Stats to the same Stat of any group of Lords, even if in other Party.
* Change the Party affiliation of a Lord in his Party to "-" (meaning no Party), applying to that Lord any legal penalties for leaving a Party.
* Take any positive amount of the Supporter Perc of his Party’s Speaker and transfer it to any group of Speakers of other Parties.

A Protocol may not contain any text that refers to either rule 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.

A Protocol may not be enforced in the period of 24 hours within its enactment. During that time, the Prime Minister may choose to Veto that Protocol, by applying the Imperial Seal to the comments of the Blog entry with the Caucus which created that Protocol. Any Admin may then delete the text of that Protocol from this rule and transfer up to 5 Confidence to himself from the Prime Minister.

0-6. Self-fail. ShadowSliver's vote is interpreted as a single EV DEFERENTIAL to Chronos. Failed by Orson 11/10.

Proposal: Positive Support [Trivial]

In the Supporters rule, change

Each Speaker has a percentage of the population supporting their party.

to

Each Speaker has a non-negative percentage of the population supporting their party. Any action which would make that percentage a negative number is illegal and may not be taken.

Reached quorum; passed 6-1 (EV 8-1). Patio11's vote deferred to Chronos. Enacted 11/9 by Simon. +2 to Chronos and Simon.

Proposal: Cold Fusion [Trivial]

In Rule 11 -- Parties change

If a Party has only one Lord, that Lord is called a Maverick. Maverick Lords are not considered Lords for the purpose of Requesting Caucuses with any Party.

to read

If a Party has only one Lord, that Lord is called a Maverick. Maverick Lords are not considered Lords for the purpose of Requesting Caucuses with any Party. This restriction does not apply to Caucuses requested under Rule 24 -- Party Fusion.

This actually gives Party fusion the chance of being, you know, useful.

Reached quorum; passed 7-1 (EV 10-1). Enacted 11/9 by Simon. +2 to Patio11 and Simon.

Proposal : Electoral Simplification [Trivial]

[ Eh, huge boring rules and random bonuses. Bring me my axe. ]

Reword Rule 21 (Electoral Gain), in its entirety, to:-

At any time, if a Lord has more than 100 Confidence, that Lord may spend ALL his current Confidence and increase his Electoral Votes by 1.

The Speaker of a Party may transfer any number of his or her Electoral Votes to other members of that Party, provided that no Electoral Votes have been transferred within that Party within the past 24 hours.

Vetoed by the Prime Minister; failed 11/9 by Simon.

Proposal: Good Enough for Government Work II [Trivial]

Repeal Voting Record.

Reached quorum; passed 6-2 (EV 8-3). ShadowSliver's votes deferred to Chronos. Enacted 11/9 by Simon. +2 to Chronos and Simon.

Proposal : Spam Scam Counterslam [Trivial]

[ A couple of painless countermeasures to reduce infinity-scamming. ]

To the end of the first paragraph of Rule 16 (Caucuses), add:-

A Lord may not request more than one Caucus per day.

In Rule 11 (Parties), replace "Any Lord may announce the creation of a new Party by posting an entry" with:-

Any Lord may announce the creation of a new Party, no more than once per day, by posting an entry

Reached quorum; passed 8-0 (EV 11-0). Enacted 11/9 by Simon. +2 to Kevan and Simon.

Proposal: I Think We Need A Seating Arrangement

Add a new rule, Block Politics:

All Parties belong to one of the following three ideological Blocks: Liberal, Center, or Conservative. This is tracked in the GNDT as a property of each Lord. Any Lord may, at any time, set the Block of a Member of any Party to the same as the Speaker of that same Party.

The Speaker of a Party created in the last twentyfour hours may change his Block entry to any of the three legal values. This action may be performed only once per Party created, regardless of how many Speakers the Party may have in the twentyfour hour period.

Repeal this paragraph twenty-four hours after this Proposal is passed. All Lords are have their Block set to Center immediately on passage of this Proposal. Any Lord may alter their Block to one of the three legal values exactly once.

If at least one member of the Liberal Block casts a vote which tallies to YES on any non-Trivial proposal, and no members of the Liberal Block cast a vote which tallies to NO on that same proposal, then all members of the Conservative Block who vote YES on that proposal lose 5 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Liberal Block casts a vote which tallies to NO on any non-Trivial proposal, and no members of the Liberal Block cast a vote which tallies to YES on that same proposal, then all members of the Conservative Block who vote NO on that proposal lose 5 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Conservative Block casts a vote which tallies to YES on any non-Trivial proposal, and no members of the Conservative Block cast a vote which tallies to NO on that same proposal, then all members of the Liberal Block who vote YES on that proposal lose 5 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Conservative Block casts a vote which tallies to NO on any non-Trivial proposal, and no members of the Conservative Block cast a vote which tallies to YES on that same proposal, then all members of the Liberal Block who vote NO on that proposal lose 5 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Conservative Block casts a vote which tallies to YES on a non-Trivial proposal, and no member of the Conservative Block casts a vote which tallies to NO on the proposal, then all members of the Conservative Block gain 2 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Conservative Block casts a vote which tallies to NO on a non-Trivial proposal, and no member of the Conservative Block casts a vote which tallies to YES on the proposal, then all members of the Conservative Block gain 2 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Liberal Block casts a vote which tallies to YES on a non-Trivial proposal, and no member of the Liberal Block casts a vote which tallies to NO on the proposal, then all members of the Liberal Block gain 2 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Liberal Block casts a vote which tallies to NO on a non-Trivial proposal, and no member of the Liberal Block casts a vote which tallies to YES on the proposal, then all members of the Liberal Block gain 2 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Center Block casts a vote which tallies to YES on a non-trivial proposal, and no member of the Center Block casts a vote which tallies to NO on the same proposal, then all members of the Center block lose 2 Confidence.

If at least one member of the Center Block casts a vote which tallies to NO on a non-trivial proposal, and no member of the Center Block casts a vote which tallies to YES on the same proposal, then all members of the Center block lose 2 Confidence.

You want some mad politicking? OK, so here's what it means. All Parties have exactly one Block they belong to. If all members of the Conservative or Liberal block agree with each other, thats good for them. If any Conservative or Liberal defects when that happens, thats bad for the defector. People in the Center Block don't have to worry about this, but if the Center unanimously votes for a certain outcome, they all lose out because they're not being a good Center.

I envision some really fun politicking with people trying to game this to produce Confidence runs which, of course, lead to Electoral Votes, which are the Water of Life.


"I swear Patio, if you vote with the seals you'll never see a War Committee assignment in this town again." "But they're so cute and cuddly!" "Right-wing nutjob." "Well, aren't we all?" "On our good days, Patio, on our good days."

3-5 (EV 4-6) Self fail. ShadowSliver's Vote was considered a single EV DEFERENTIAL - deferring to Chronos. Failed by Orson 11/10.

Proposal: Party Discipline [Trivial]

Replace the first paragraph of Rule 19 -- Electoral Votes with the following:

Each Lord holds a number of Electoral Votes, reflecting how much power that Lord wields in the name of his people. This is tracked by the GNDT. When a Lord votes on a Proposal, they may cast any number of their Electoral Votes, with a minimum of one - this is signified by including the relevant number of vote icons in a single comment. (If a later comment from the same Lord uses a different number of icons, that takes precedence.) All Electoral Votes cast in a single comment must be the same. If a plural number of DEFERENTIAL votes are ever tallied, they will be tallied as a group (either FOR, AGAINST, or abstentation), as provided for in other rules. Regardless of the number of Electoral Votes a Lord is entitled to cast, there is only one, singular, result of his vote.

Someone recently said we need to worry if someone defers to a person with less EV. That can only happen if you're Party Speaker, defering to the Prime Minister, incidentally. Anyhow, this fixes the problem.

Reached Quorum; passed 7-0 (EV 9-0). Enacted 11/9 by Simon. +2 to Patio11 and Simon.

Proposal: Debate

Adds a new rule, Debate:

Any Lord may start a debate with another Lord by posting a caucus with the subject: Debate with [Lord]. The post must include the topic of the debate (such as the economic crisis hitting BlogNomia) and who is to be the moderator. The moderator must be from a different Party than both the Lords.

The moderator will think of a question to ask the Lord of the moderator's choice. That Lord then will respond with an answer to the question. The other lord may then respond with a rebuttal. The moderator replies with another question, this time directed at the other Lord. That Lord responds, then the other one replies with a rebuttal.

At this point everyone from all Parties may vote on it. A FOR vote is showing that the Initiater won, AGAINST says that the other Lord won. Those are the only legal votes. Electoral votes do not matter. If the number of FOR votes is equal to or greater than Quorum, then the initiater won. If the number of AGAINST votes is equal to or greater than Quorum, then the initiater won.

If the initiater won, than the initiater gains 4% of the Percent, and 10 confidence. The other Lord loses 2% of the Percent and 5 confidence. If the initiater wins, then the initiater loses 4% of the Percent, and 10 confidence. The other Lord gains 4% of the percent and 10 confidence.

I removed the electoral votes for this rule because we are supposed to be undecided voters for this rule.

Vetoed by the Prime Minister; failed 11/9 by Simon.

Notice: Electoral Votes and New History

With the passage of "Early and Often," you now have to post an icon for each individual vote you'd like to make. This is only really of interest to Knightking and ShadowSliver, but I thought you'd like to know that your effectiveness has been halved on the pending proposals.

On a less procedural note, I've posted the history of the First Dynasty of Knightking for your approval. Compliments and comments are welcomed, in that order.

Proposal: Thematic Goodness [Trivial]

Replace all instances of the word "Rogue" in the ruleset with the word "Maverick".

Oh, you know that Patio, he might look tough under all the paramilitary gear but I hear he has a really soft spot for baby seals. Tough to categorize him, really.

Replace all instances of the word "Audience" with "Caucus".

Come on, its the twenty-first century here. We're more wheeling and dealing than those old, kill-you-if-you-insult-the-High-Lord types.

Replace all instances of the words "High Lord" with "Prime Minister".

Governments change, but the top dog still gets the bone.

Repeat the above replacements for plural forms, as appropriate.

10-0. Reached Quorum (8). Enacted by Chronos

Audience with New Democratic: Application

Herewith the entity known as Jarrod wishes to lodge its affiliation with the New Democratic party.

Reached NDP quorum; passed 2-0. Enacted 11/8 by Simon.

Proposal: Popular Support [Trivial]

Add to the Supporters rule:

If at any time a Party has less than 1% of the population supporting them, any Lord may disband that Party by clearing the Party and Vote for Speaker for every member of that Party.

Failed by Chronos

Proposal: Opposition Parties [Trivial]

Change the second sentence of the Parties rule to:

Any Lord with a negative Party Voting Record may announce the creation of a new Party by posting an entry with the subject “Party Creation: [Party Name]”

And add to the end of that rule:

Parties with no members cease to exist.

[So only if a lord is enough of an iconoclast to vote against their party more often than not, can they form their own party.]

1-8. Reached Quorum (6). Enacted by Chronos

Call for Judgement: Exploit Fix

I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

I propose a call for judgement to eliminate the exploit discovered. If you want details of the exploit, scroll way down to the bottom of this post and look at the last quote bit of text. Its very detailed, and not exactly in a way that someone unfamiliar with mathematical proofs or CS would understand. I spent one hour polishing this post as it is. If you don't care what the exploit is and just want it fixed, keep reading and then vote Yes for the CfJ.

A vote for Yes for this CfJ causes the following changes:

The text for Rule 11 - Parties is changed to read the following:

A Lord’s Party and Vote for Speaker are tracked in the GNDT.

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

Parties have a Speaker. Any Lord in a Party and not Speaker of that Party is referred to as a Member. All Lords within a Party must name a Lord, within that Party, which they want to be the Speaker, and they may only change that nomination once per day. At any time, if the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming a Lord for Speakership exceeds the totaled number of Electoral Votes of all Lords thus naming the current Speaker, any Lord in the effected Party may change the Party’s Speakership.

If a Party has currently no Speaker, any Lord of that Party may change the Party’s Speakership so it goes to the Lord with the higher totaled number of Electoral Votes of Lords naming him.

A Party’s Speakership is indicated by adding a * to the end of the Speaker’s Party name.

Lords who are not in a Party are not considered Lords for rules other than 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11 and 12.

If a Party has only one Lord, that Lord is called a Rogue. Rogue Lords are not considered Lords for the purpose of Requesting Audiences with any Party.

If at any time a Lord would be in multiple Parties, they are in the last Party they joined only.

Any time a Lord joins a Party, all invitations that have been extended for that Lord to join other Parties cease to apply.

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

Why? Eliminates the perilous case that happens when people write rules assuming Speakers are not Members, which was NOT the case in the previous ruleset.

Add the following sentence to the end of Rule 21 - Electoral Gain:

No Lord may gain an Electoral Vote in the 24 hours after joining a Party.

Replace the following text in Rule 21 - Electoral Gain:

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party has gained an Electoral Vote, that Speaker may choose to transfer that Vote to any Member of his Party.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party was entitled to gain an Electoral Vote, but failed to do so due to a cap to his Electoral Votes, that Speaker may choose to award that Vote to any Member of his Party.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the High Lord has gained an Electoral Vote, he may choose to transfer that Vote to any Speaker of a Party.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the High Lord was entitled to gain an Electoral Vote, but failed to do so due to a cap to his Electoral Votes, he may choose to award that Vote to any Speaker of a Party.

with the text

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party has gained an Electoral Vote, if the Speakership of the Party has not been transferred since the gain took place, that Speaker may choose to transfer that Vote to any Member of his Party.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party was entitled to gain an Electoral Vote, but failed to do so due to a cap to his Electoral Votes, if the Speakership of the Party has not been transferred since the gain took place, that Speaker may choose to award that Vote to any Member of his Party.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the High Lord has gained an Electoral Vote, he may choose to transfer that Vote to any Speaker of a Party who is not the High Lord.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the High Lord was entitled to gain an Electoral Vote, but failed to do so due to a cap to his Electoral Votes, he may choose to award that Vote to any Speaker of a Party who is not the High Lord.

Why? Breaks the recursion outlined, and stops the case of the High Lord assuming Speakership of a Party and being able to turn himself into a one man vote recursing machine (I won't detail this exploit -- its very similar to the one I'm fixing, and I decided to kill two birds with one stone).

Patio11's Confidence is set to 80 from whatever value it currently is. To eliminate the penalty for the failed Straw Poll Proposal and give me a reward for not being a bastard. The reward comes out to be a net of 5 Confidence, no big deal.

Any Lord with more than 3 Electoral Votes has their Electoral Vote total reduced to 1 and their Confidence reduced to the lower of one half of their current number, or 50. This is the penalty clause suggested for someone who immediately uses the exploit to game the system -- the exploit is the only feasible way to get your EV above 3 before the Call for Judgement passes.

The exploit:

Subroutine: In a two man Party you can swap Speakership if EV totals are equal. Banish current Speaker -- both people vote affirmative. Banish passes. Remove leader, install new leader. Invite old leader back. Note that this murders Confidence but since Confidence isn't a cost of the Banish action this doesn't matter -- it will just get zeroed eventually and then when the Party has achieved total dominance they can give themselves as much as they want.

Definition: float -- Take advantage of the rule which allows the Speaker to postpone gaining a vote for 24 hours if it would put them over the cap. Note that it doesn't ask if you were the Speaker when you gained the vote, and it does allow you to transfer the vote to yourself, because the Speaker is also a Member ("any Member of his Party") currently. "Take down float" means realize the gain of a floated electoral vote.


When you should stop the loop -- You can stop looping after your two-man alliance reaches 7 electoral votes (the number currently in play is 12 -- at most 10 of these are against you. 7 seems like an insurmountable lead at the moment, as it requires all but a unanimous vote of the other players to defeat you, and increasing your EV count after you have 7 is trivially easy -- sooner or later the unanimous vote will break. You CAN exploit up to 10 but its a little more difficult -- not significantly so, though). You also need to stop the loop, without victory, if I say "breaks the recursion" in the following description.

Little niggly bits -- This method doesn't require passing a single proposal until the loop is ended. The votes for Banishment and letting in the "new" alliance member are assumed to be automatic and instantaneous -- the only thing you can do meaningfully after the loop has started is to ban it or exploit it yourself, but faster. The loop takes an average of under 6 DICE to win when it and 3 DICE to fail to win, starting from a total of 3 EV controlled by the conspiracy Party, so you won't be at it all night (if you spot them extra votes, winning comes quicker, losing takes longer).

Loop invariants (These things must be true when you get to the loop):

A and B are in a two man Party.
A, B are both voting for themselves as Speaker.
At least one of A or B has EV > 1, and the other person has either the same number of votes or exactly one vote less.
The Speaker has just received an EV, and has not yet tarnished it (rolled dice or given it away).

Loop: If parity is odd (Speaker has one more vote than other. Without loss of generality, Speaker is A.)

A gives one vote to B. This causes B to float, and A and B are equal. Swap leader. B is now speaker. B takes down float. B = A + 1, B has just gained a vote. B makes dice roll.

Case 1: Both A & B lose one vote. Kills recursion if they both have only one. If not, odd parity, B gives one vote to A, A floats, swap leader, A takes down float. Recurse at odd.
Case 2: If A only had 1, don't care. B gives one vote to A, A floats, swap leader, A takes down float. Recurse at odd. If A has more than one vote, give one vote to A. A floats. Banish B, both vote in favor. Invite B, B has more votes than Speaker, equalize votes according to EV cap. A takes down float. Total votes decreases by one or two. Recurse at odd.
Case 3,4: B gives vote to A. A floats. Swap leader. A takes down float. Recurse at odd.
Case 5: A, B reach even parity. Total votes increases by one. Recurse at even.
Case 6: Odd parity maintained. Total votes increases by two. B gives vote to A, A floats. Swap leader. A takes down float. Recurse at odd.


Loop: Parity is even (Both have equal number of votes, but not equal to one. Loop invariants same as before. Without loss of generality, Speaker is A. If A doesn't have untarnished vote, then B does -- swap leader, and call the new Speaker A.)

Trigger die roll.

Case 1: Kills recursion if both have 1 vote. If not, recurse at even.
Case 2: Brings to odd parity. Note that you've used your roll, but not your give. A gives vote to B. B floats. Swap leader. B takes down float. Total number of votes decreases. Recurse at odd parity.
Case 3,4: Note you've used your roll, but not your give. A gives vote to B. B floats, immediately loses 1 vote due to having more votes than leader (equalizing votes). Swap leader. B takes down float. Total number of votes decreases. Recurse at odd parity.
Case 5: B gets float. Swap leader. B takes down float. Recurse at odd parity, Total votes++.
Case 6: Even parity maintained. Total votes +=2. Recurse at even parity.


OK, big deal you say, you need to get lucky for this to work. Nope -- I threw my computer at the problem and had it do a couple of thousand trials. Starting from A=2, B=1 gets the A-B alliance to a quorum busting 7 votes 25% of the time. If you start with 2/2, you get 40%. 3/2, you get 60%. 3/3, 75%. (I'm doing some rounding here) So it turns out that, when I said the exploit was trivial, it wasn't quite. But hey, a minimum 25% chance of breaking the game open per electoral vote gained is kinda scary, and assuming everyone jumped on the exploit bandwagon someone is almost guaranteed to win with this strategy, after overloading the poor computer with DICE requests.

I can give you the gawk script which demonstrates this vulnerability if you really want it. You have to buy that the vulernability works as I described, though -- if so, it outputs the percentage chance of Ascention given the initial EV totals of the pair of conspirators.
5-0 Reached Quorum. Ruleset and Gamestate amended by Orson, Nov 8

Proposal: Party Fusion

Add a Party Fusion rule:

At Any time, the Speaker of a Party may attempt to fuse his Party (hereby called Party 1) to another Party (hereby called Party 2), by requesting an Audience with that Party, with a topic of "Fusion with [Party 1], become [New Name]".

Any member of either Party 1 or Party 2 may block this request by casting an AGAINST vote in the Audience. If that happens, the Audience shall be processed as if the Speaker of Party 2 had vetoed it.

If the Audience is approved, all members of both Party 1 and Party 2 become members of a Party named [New Name], as specified in the Request topic, and any Lord in either original Party may adjust the GNDT to reflect that condition. The Lord doing so may transfer to himself, once, 5 Confidence from the Speaker of the resulting Party. No Confidence penalty shall be deduced for any Member leaving his original Party this way.

If the Audience is rejected, the Petitioner and any Lord who voted FOR it lose 15 Confidence each.

If there is a tie between the Votes for Speaker nominating the Speaker of the resulting Party, the former Speaker of Party 2 shall be granted Speakership of the resulting Party.

If the Fusion results in any violation of a boundary to Electoral Votes quantity, as set in rule 19, those violations shall be solved by reducing the number of Electoral Votes held by one of the offending Lords.

9-2. Reached Quorum (8). Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Good Enough for Government Work

Repeal the Confidence Sharing rule.

8-1. Reached Quorum (7). Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: No Quorum Monopoly III [Trivial]

I'll keep trying

Add to the Electoral Votes rule:

At any time, if the totaled number of Electoral Votes held by all the Lords exceeds twice the total number of those Lords, the number of Electoral Votes held by the Lord with most Electoral Votes shall be reduced by 1. If two or more Lords are tied, when considering the Lord with most Electoral Votes for this paragraph, the number of Electoral Votes held by each of them shall be reduced by 1.

S-K. Failed by Chronos

Proposal : Early and Often

[ Reflecting Electoral Voting strength with number-of-vote-icons-used, both for clarity and to make Admins' lives easier. ]

Add the following to the end of the first paragraph of Rule 19 (Electoral Votes):-

When a Lord votes on a Proposal, they may cast any number of their Electoral Votes, with a minimum of one - this is signified by including the relevant number of vote icons in a single comment. (If a later comment from the same Lord uses a different number of icons, that takes precedence.)

Add the following to the end of Rule 20 (Electoral Vote Counting):-

If Electoral Votes that were cast on a Proposal are no longer available to the Lord who cast them, but were available at the time of casting, then they still stand.

Also in Rule 20, replace "held" with "cast", throughout.

Reached quorum; passed 7-0 (EV 9-0). Patio11's vote deferred to Chronos, as he is the Speaker of his party. Enacted 11/8 by Simon. +10 to Kevan, +5 to Simon, +4 to ShadowSliver (Confidence Sharing.)

Proposal: The New Dynasty Straw Poll

This proposal alters no rules and does not, by itself, change gamestate in any way.

There exists an exploit which is trivially capable of causing an infinite EV explosion. I would have ended the Dynasty already (exploit myself to 100 electoral votes, propose fix to exploit, propose Patio wins the dynasty), except I actually like the theme and don't want to kill it within two hours of reading the Ascention Address.

A vote of yes for this Proposal tells me "Go ahead Patio, I don't like this theme, end the Dynasty."

A vote of no tells me "I'd prefer to see where this one goes, too. Just fix the exploit."

If the consensus on this proposal is yes, I will probably end the Dynasty. If the consensus is no, I will issue a proposal to close the loophole which allows the exploit. I would be obliged if you guys, when you read that proposal, do not immediately exploit to win the Dynasty yourself, but I can't enforce that.

Anyhow, in keeping with the theme of the dynasty, let the people's voice be heard.

Failed 0-5 (EV 0-6): self-kill by Patio11. Failed 11/8 by Simon. Penalty to Patio11 waived by request of High Lord. +2 to Simon.

Proposal: Equality Among The Lords

In Rule 21: Electoral Gains, change

Any time an Admin enacts a non-Trivial Proposal, he shall roll a dice. If that dice comes up 5, the Electoral Votes held by the Proposer shall be raised by 1. If that dice comes up 6, the Electoral Votes held by both the Proposer and the Admin doing the enactment shall be raised by 1.

to read

Any time an Admin enacts a non-Trivial Proposal, he shall roll a dice. If that dice comes up 5 or 6, the Electoral Votes held by the Proposer shall be raised by 1.

If this proposal passes, the above die roll will be conducted under the old rule, not the new one.

That last sentence isn't, strictly speaking, necessary, but I'd like to keep things clear when possible. Admins have plenty of Confidence building advantages as it is, especially when coupled with the ability to admin strategically to improve one's standing with one's alliance, and they don't need this extra EV provision. Especially not with the massive unbalancing effect a few rolls of 6 would have on the game in a short order -- if the next two proposals from Party X roll boxcars you can kiss this dynasty goodbye -- thats four extra votes they can use to quash all opposition.

5-1 (6-1 EV) Reached Quorum & EV requirements. Enacted by Orson, Nov 8

New Lord : Jarrod

Welcome to BlogNomic. Here's your seat, here's your plastic-prism name block, here's your glass of water. Quorum rises to six.

Party Creation: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC)

I would like to announce the creation of yet another party of one, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Nobody is invited at this time -- we here at the VRWC are still in the process of converting our loyal foot soldiers into loyal partisans and extra Lords might get caught in the crossfire of... spirited public debate, yeah, thats it. *boom* Pay no attention to the explosions in the background -- its just celebration of my impending election as Party Speaker. The vote will be unanimous as soon as the last pocket of resistance is wiped out. *boom* Yep, there we go.

Proposal: Party Politics 3: The Quickening

Add a Rule titled Party Politics:

Members of a Party may make proposals with a title, Party Proposal:[Title Here]. Only rules 1,4,5,6 and 15 apply to Party proposals, except that the Party should be treated as the only players relevant to the Party Proposal and no Confidence penaltys or rewards are valid. This Rule automatically repeals itself at the end of this dynasty.

Party Proposals are direct orders from the Party to one, some, or the whole Party to do certain things, either one time or when certain conditions are fulfilled. Party Proposals can force Lords in their specific party to:

• -give or take Confidence from their own Party members
  
• -make certain voting decisions in non-Party Proposals
• -make a certain non-Party Proposal
• -commit any action made legal by the non-Party Rules

The High Lord may retroactively veto any Party Proposal and reverse the effects of it.

Each Party has a section in this rule with their specific Party Rules:

[Exiles]

• -

[Prosperity]

• -

[Evolution]

• -

[Progressive]

• 
  

[New Democratic]

• 
  

If the majority of Lords voting FOR affix a "4" to their vote, then the fourth bullet "commit any action made legal by non-Party Rules" is struck if the rule passes.

The idea of orders comes from Damanor's dynasty which had a version of this.

Failed by Chronos

Unidle me please

I go away for one little week and come back to democracy breaking out all over the place. Have no fear, warrior legions, we're down with the regime change and ready to start showing off our ground game.

Proposal: Less Book-Keeping [Trivial]

In the Voting Record rule, change:

Whenever votes are tallied, the processing Admin must modify the Voting Record of all participating Lords.

to

Whenever votes are tallied for a non-Trivial Proposal, the processing Admin must modify the Voting Record of all participating Lords.

7-0. Reached Quorum.
Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Power to the People

Or person, or whatever.

If this Proposal passes, the player Simon shall be made an Admin.

7-0. Reached Quorum.
Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Red/Blue (Green, yellow and black?)

Adds a new rule, Supporters

Each Speaker has a percentage of the population supporting their party. This is tracked in the GNDT under Perc (abbreviated). Non-speakers have a blank field for Percent.

Each Party begins with 15% of the population supporting them. If at any time, the combined percent of all of the parties is greater than 100%, subtract 1% from all the parties until the combined percent is less than or equal to 100%.

Each time a non-speaker member of a party has a succesfully passed non-trivial proposal, their party may gain 1% of the population. Each time a speaker has a succesfully passed non-trivial proposal, their party may gain 3% of the population.

If at anytime a party has more than 45% of the population supporting them, every member of that party may gain 10 confidence. That party may not gain more for 36 hours, at which point they may, provided they still have >45%. This process continues until they have <45%.

There could be other ways later, to gain Perc. I was thinking in the Party Gains propsal.

6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Party Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo

Add a Rule titled Party Politics:

Members of a Party may make proposals with a title, Party Proposal:[Title Here]. Only rules 1,4,5,6 and 15 apply to Party proposals, except that the Party should be treated as the only players relevant to the Party Proposal and no Confidence penaltys or rewards are valid. This Rule automatically repeals itself at the end of this dynasty.

No Party Proposal may directly affect any Lord not in the Proposal's specific Party, nor must any Lord outside the Party obey the Party Rule , nor can the proposal involve winning the Dynasty. Since Rule 1 applies to Party Rules, the only players in the game for Party Rules are Lords in the party, and therefore as Blognomic cannot alter reality outside our game, (involving matters of the awesomeness of cheese) Party Rules cannot change anything outside of their own game.

The High Lord may veto any Party Proposal.

Each Party has a section in this rule with their specific Party Rules:

[Exiles]

• -

[Prosperity]

• -

[Evolution]

• -

[Progressive]

• -

Even if you disagree about my arguement concerning the effects of Rule 1 being applied within the Party, and that making any exploits impossible, Chronos can just veto anything that is excessive.

Failed by Chronos

Proposal: Gerrymandering [Trivial]

Add to the Electoral Gains rule:

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party has gained an Electoral Vote, that Speaker may choose to transfer that Vote to any Member of his Party.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party was entitled to gain an Electoral Vote, but failed to do so due to a cap to his Electoral Votes, that Speaker may choose to award that Vote to any Member of his Party.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the High Lord has gained an Electoral Vote, he may choose to transfer that Vote to any Speaker of a Party.

Once within the period of 24 hours after the High Lord was entitled to gain an Electoral Vote, but failed to do so due to a cap to his Electoral Votes, he may choose to award that Vote to any Speaker of a Party.

6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Party Lines [Trivial]

Add to the Electoral Gains rule:

Once within the period of 24 hours after the Speaker of Party has gained an Electoral Vote, that Speaker may spin a propaganda campaign and roll a dice for every member of his Party, except himself. If the Speaker is entitled but fails to spin the campaign for any member of his Party, that member may transfer once 5 Confidence from the Speaker to himself. The Electoral Votes of both the Speaker and/or the target Member shall be altered according to the dice result:
: 1 - Backfire - Both the Speaker and the Member lose 1 Electoral Vote
: 2 - Partial Backfire - The Member loses 1 Electoral Vote
: 3,4 - Nothing happens.
: 5 - Partisl Success - The Member gains 1 Electoral Vote
: 6 - Success - Both the Speaker and the Member gain 1 Electoral Vote. The Speaker is not entitled to start another Propaganda campaign over this gain.

5-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Minimal Quorum II [Trivial]

In rule 6 change

Quorum is equal to half the number of Lords, rounded down, plus one.

to

Quorum is equal to half the number of Lords, rounded down, plus one. No rule shall be enacted which alters, supersedes, takes precedence over or otherwise modifies any mechanism governed by a core rule (one numbered from 1 to 10) if current Quorum is different than the one determined by this rule or if current Quorum is bellow 3.

I guess this protects the core rules from an aggressive Quorum damping rule.

1-5 - Reached Quorum - Failed by Chronos

Notice: Template Reward Announcement

I hereby announce that Lords may present myself with Workable Templates for this Blog. The author of the first one I approve and publish will be reward once by a transfer of as much Confidence I am entitled to under rule "Confidence Sharing" at the moment the Template is published by me.

High Lord Chronos

Proposal: Voting Record

The media and watchdog groups meticulously document voting records.

Add a rule called Voting Record:

A Lord's Voting Record is tracked in the GNDT entry titled V.R. (for compactness) in the format #(#), where the first number is the General Voting Record and the number in parentheses is the Party Voting Record.

Whenever votes are tallied, the processing Admin must modify the Voting Record of all participating Lords. Add 1 to a Lord's General Voting Record if the Lord's Vote was with the majority, subtract 1 if the Lord's Vote was against the majority. Do the same with the Party Voting Record but use the majority of members of that Lord's Party instead of the general majority. For this determination, a VETO is counted as an AGAINST Vote, and a DEFERENTIAL Vote is counted as FOR or AGAINST or ignored, according to how it was resolved when tallied.

When an Admin has completed updating the Voting Records required for an Official Post for which there is no other Admin reward, they may increase their Confidence by 2.

If a Lord does not have a Voting Record it is set to 0(0).

[Yes, this is a bit of fiddly record-keeping for Admins, but I think we Admins are well compensated, particularly if Electoral Gain passes.]

5-3 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos

Proposal: Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb [Trivial]

[ Tsk, another high-speed Dynasty start with insanely low quorum. And I still think it's quite a bad idea not to repeal everything, at the end of the Dynasty; particularly so when quite a few people got bored with the previous Dynasty and went idle. Anyone else? ]

Repeal all rules from 11 onwards, excluding the Glossary.

1-4 - Cannot pass without COV - Failed by Chronos

Party Creation: New Democratic

Invite: Kevan
Invite: ShadowSliver
Invite: Chronos

Call for Judgement: Proposal: No Quorum monopoly

Due to rule 11, TrumanCapote's vote was not legal, and as a result at the time of this posting the vote is tied 2-2, and does not have quorum.

If this CfJ passes, revert the passing of the proposal "No Quorum monopoly" and any proposals which may have passed after it, and reopen voting.

6-1. Reached Quorum. Enacted by Chronos, added note to the Glossary

Proposal: Party Politics

Add a Rule titled Party Politics:

Members of a Party may make proposals with a title, Party Proposal:[Title Here]. Only rules 1,4,5,6 and 15 apply to Party proposals, except that the Party should be treated as the only players relevant to the Party Proposal and no Confidence penaltys or rewards are valid. This Rule automatically repeals itself at the end of this dynasty.

No part Party Proposal may directly affect any Lord not in the Proposal's specific Party or involve winning the Dynasty .

Each Party has a section in this rule with their specific Party Rules:

[Exiles]

[Prosperity]

[Evolution]

[Progressive]

The middle sentence is the most succinct way to stop any Party Proposal saying "the other Parties give us all of their Confidence" or "TrumanCapote wins the Dynasty"

Vetoed for being exploitable - Failed by Chronos

Suggestion: History

Kevan, why don't you move our annotated history to the Wiki? That would make possible for the admins to help you updating it.

There's an update from Simon for the Petri Dish dinasty that has not seen the light until now. As High Lord, I authorize the claiming of 20 Confidence by Simon when his report of that Dinasty is published.

Party Creation: Evolution

Invite Simon, TrumanCapote and Kevan.

Proposal: Friendly Confidence [Trivial]

Add to the rule Confidence Sharing:

At any time, if a Lord has more Confidence than another Member of his Party, that Lord may transfer as much Confidence as he wants to the other Member. This transfer can't result in the transfering Lord having less Confidence than the receiving Member.

For the purpose of this rule, the High Lord shall be considered as if he was Member of every Party, though not the Speaker of any.

6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos