Proposal: Passing the Mantle

I humbly submit that the winner of each dynasty should be able to select an alternative ruler for the next dynasty if e so wishes.

In Rule 9, Victory and Ascension, insert the following paragraph between the second and third paragraphs:

At the winner's discretion, e may choose another active Disciple to be the Philosopher-King for the next dynasty. This is known as Passing the Mantle. If the selected Disciple agrees, then all rights and responsibilities of the Philosopher-King transfer to the selected Disciple. If the winner makes no mention of Passing the Mantle, it is assumed that the winner has decided to become the next Philosopher-King.

8-4 with 1 Deferential. Timed out, Enacted by Angry Grasshopper, 07/07/2005 20:13.

Proposal: Companionship

I humbly submit that companionship is a good Republican value and, to that end, this text shall be appended to rule 11 – The Republic:

Often, a Disciple may transfer up to 5 of eir Significant Aspect to another Disciple whose Role is the same as eirs.

A Disciple’s Significant Aspect is the one e is allowed to increase often. (Example: Guardians’ Signficant Aspect is Knowledge)

7-2. Timed Out. Enacted by Chronos at 07/04/2005 GMT 16:23

Proposal: Slaves are good for the Republic

I humbly submit that the current text about the Slaves is too harsh, and shall be changed to:

Slaves: 25 – Often, Disciples who own Slaves may add five to their Gold. Whenever a Disciple makes such an addition to their Gold as the result of owning Slaves, that Disciple's Honor may be decrease once by the number of Slave-owning Disciples. Any Disciple not owning Slaves may enforce this decreasing.

4-2. Timed-Out. Enacted by Chronos at 07/04/2005 GMT 16:22

Proposal: Fate of the morally degenerate. (For real this time.)

I humbly submit that bad things happen to those who run out of Gold, Honor, or Knowledge, and therfore the following text should be added to rule 11:

If a Producer has 0 or less Gold eir role is set to Thief, if a Auxiliary has 0 or less honor eir role is set to Traitor, and if a Guardian has 0 or less Knowledge eir role is set to Idiot.

Often, Thieves may steal Gold from another Disiple by naming a victim and rolling 2DICE6 in the GNDT. The victim then loses Gold equal to the dice roll and the Thief gains Gold and loses Honor equal to the dice roll. In the event that the Thief rolls a 2 the Thief is caught, loses all eir Gold and Honor and the victim's gold is not reduced.

Traitors may only vote the opposite of the Philosopher-King's vote or the same as the Gadfly's vote on proposals that are not made by em. A Trator may once every 24 hours increase eir Honor by 5. A Trator may not increase eir honor if the Gadfly has taken a game action in the last 24 hours.

Idiots may only vote deferential. Any Disiple may transfer 5 Knowledge to an Idiot to change eir vote on a proposal to For or Against. A proposal made by an Idiot does not automaticly fail if that Idiot votes against it.

If a Thief has 50 or more Gold eir role is set to Producer, if a Trator has 50 or more honor eir role is set to Auxiliary, and if a Idiot has 50 or more Knowledge eir role is set to Guardian.

9-1, Reached Quorum, Enacted by Chronos, 07/02/2005 14:40.

Proposal: The Gadfly's plan.

I humbly submit that it doesn't make sense that the Gadfly, who is the rival of the Philosopher-King should try to make the Republic prosper. Indeed, I think that the Gadfly would try to destroy it instead.

Add the following text to rule 18:

If all the Republic's aspects are 0, then the Gadfly may declare victory.

9-1 Reached Quorum, Enacted by Chronos, 07/02/2005 14:39.

Proposal: Palindromes

I humbly submit that symmetry is the essence of beauty, and that The Republic should always strive for symmetry and beauty.

Thus, if this proposal passes, the following text will be added as a rule entitled "Palindromes semordnilap"

A Palindrome is a string of text which is equal to its reversal. For the purposes of this rule, strings of text are equal if they have the same sequence of letters or numbers, ignoring capitalization, punctiation, and spaces. Thus, the string "Madam, I'm Adam" is a Palindrome, as it is equal to the string "mada m'I ,madaM".

If a proposal proposes the the creation of a new rule, or the changing of the name of an existing rule, then the new rule's name or the rule's new name must be a Palindrome. Any proposal which does not follow this rule is illegal.

1-8 Cannot be enacted withou COV, Failed by Chronos, 07/02/2005 14:35.

Proposal: Bureaucratic Limits and Delays of Edicts

I humbly submit that the following text be appended after the first paragraph of rule 19 - Gruel.

An Edict is issued by making an official post with a subject of the form "Edict: [Title]" where [Title] is an Edict title of the poster's choosing. The text of the post must contain the text of the Edict. The post may optionally contain text which is not part of the Edict, so long as it is clearly distinguishable from the Edict text. An Edict post which does not follow this format is illegal.

An Edict is enacted when there are no pending proposals which are older than the Edict post. When an Edict is enacted, the text of the Edict is added to a list at the bottom of this rule. Any Edict in the list at the bottom of this post, even if placed there by a mechanism other than the one described in this paragraph, is considered "enacted".

An Edict which places constraints on Proposal formatting which contradict an existing Rule or Edict may not be enacted. For example, an Edict stating "Proposals may not use the word Proposal in their subject" cannot be enacted, as it contradicts Rule 3.

This should solve the ambiguity over retro-activity of Edicts, as well as the open-ended game-stalling power that they potentially have in the present wording.

As further clarification, if this proposal passes, then all instanced of the word "edict" in the rules will be changed to "Edict".

As still further clarification, if this proposal passes, then the description of the Property "House" in rule 20 will be modified to remove the clause "issued by the Philosopher-King". This is because the rules have no mechanism in place for keeping track of who issued which Edict, and if it becomes the case that players other than the P-K are able to issue Edicts, then the existing wording cause confusion as a House will exempt players from only a subset of the Edicts, without that subset being clearly displayed.

Vetoed by Aaron Failed by Chronos, 07/02/2005 14:37.

Call for Judgement

If the CFJ previous to this one fails and this one passes, then Proposal: The Plilosopher-king gets a fly-swatter shall be considered illegal and its effects reversed. This is because edicts change what counts as a legal proposal, not weather or not one fails.

Passed 4-2 (Josh & ShadowClaw on walkabout). Enacted by smith, 5th of Month at 13:42.

Proposal: More time to make friends

I hubly submit that rule 17 be changed from

Occasionally, a Disciple may make a non-Proposal official post, called a Walkabout Invitation, to the blog that includes, in the title, the phrase "going On Walkabout". For 8 hours after the posting of this Walkabout Invitation, any Disciple may post a comment in response to it. 8 hours after the posting of this Invitation, if at least two Disciples other than the poster of the Invitation have posted a comment to it, then, for the next 24 hours, the poster of the Walkabout Invitation, along with all Disciples who posted a comment to it, are considered to be On Walkabout.

to

Occasionally, a Disciple may make a non-Proposal official post, called a Walkabout Invitation, to the blog that includes, in the title, the phrase "going On Walkabout". For 12 hours after the posting of this Walkabout Invitation, any Disciple may post a comment in response to it. 12 hours after the posting of this Invitation, if at least two Disciples other than the poster of the Invitation have posted a comment to it, then, for the next 24 hours, the poster of the Walkabout Invitation, along with all Disciples who posted a comment to it, are considered to be On Walkabout.

A little more time to get theese parties off the ground seems in order.

Contradicts Edict #1 Failed by Chronos, 07/02/2005 14:35.

Proposal: For the love of Ambiguity

I humbly submit that the first paragraph of Rule 10 be changed from:

There is a Disciple who is called The Gadfly. The Gadfly uses a distinct Veto icon, with which e is allowed to veto in the same manner as the Philosopher-King, which is called The Gadfly's Seal (the icon may be added here by The Gadfly). Each seal icon may only be changed by its wielder.

to

There is a Disciple who is called The Gadfly. The Gadfly can perform any game action that the Philosopher-King may perform unless the rule describing that game action states otherwise. The Gadfly uses a distinct Veto icon, with which e is allowed to veto in the same manner as the Philosopher-King, which is called The Gadfly's Seal (the icon may be added here by The Gadfly). Each seal icon may only be changed by its wielder.

If the majoriy of comments casting votes for this proposal contain the word "limit" then instead change Rule 19 from:

Occasionally, the Philosopher-King may issue an edict in which e details some sort of formatting limit to what counts as a legal proposal (e.g. All legal proposals must not exceed five hundred words). The edicts shall be displayed as a list in the last paragraph of this rule.

to

Occasionally, the Philosopher-King or Gadfly may issue an edict in which e details some sort of formatting limit to what counts as a legal proposal (e.g. All legal proposals must not exceed five hundred words). The edicts shall be displayed as a list in the last paragraph of this rule.

This clarifies the issue presented in the CfJ in favor of the Gadfly, but does it in the plain text of the rules. The limited version is in case people feel the unlimited version is too powerfull or opens a loophole.

Contradicts Edict #1 Failed by Chronos, 07/02/2005 14:35.

Anyone Else interested in going on Walkabout?

I missed the last walkabout window (it is pretty clear that I am not in the same timezone as the rest of the players). Anyone want to join me on walkabout? I promise a good time will be had by all.

Call for Judgement

Call For Judgement

Smith, the Gadfly, has used rule 19 to issue an edict restricting the formatting of proposals. This CfJ claims that the edict is illegal. If this CfJ passes, the edict (Edict #1) will be removed from rule 19.

Rule 19 states:

Occasionally, the Philosopher-King may issue an edict in which e details some sort of formatting limit to what counts as a legal proposal (e.g. All legal proposals must not exceed five hundred words). The edicts shall be displayed as a list in the last paragraph of this rule.

Smith (and Josh) claim that, based the statement in rule 10 that "The Gadfly has the same powers as the Philosopher-King [...]" he is entitled to issue edicts.

However, rule 8 explicitly defines "powers":

The Philosopher-King has the following powers:

E may veto any Proposal; that Proposal immediately fails. (This veto may be contested with a CfJ if it is thought excessively unreasonable.)
E may change the BlogNomic header, the colour scheme and the VETO icon, whenever e likes.

While rule 19 says that the P-K "may" issue edicts, nowhere is this explicitly defined as one of the P-K's powers.

Josh, in a comment to the post "Edict: The Fly Escapes" claims that

"Powers" is not a game-specified term, so may be taken to have its common dictionary usage - i.e. every game action that the PK is empowered to perform, be it called a Power or a Maguffin.

Rule 9 uses the wording "The Philosopher-King has the following powers". This is grammatically identical to saying "The Philospher-King's powers are". Thus, "the Philosopher-King's powers" IS a game-specified term. By rule 99, "A keyword defined by a rule supersedes the normal english usage of the word." Thus, the Philosopher-King's powers cannot be taken to mean "what the PK is empowered" to do, as that would be relying on the standard english usage rather than the game-specified definition.


If you aren't convinced, then let me list some of the consequences of the looser interpretation of "the Philosopher-King's powers" which Josh's interpretation leaves open, which is anything that the P-K is empowered to do according to the rules:

- the Gadfly may step in and decide on the legality of wins after 24 hours of Hiatus (rule 9)
- the Gadfly may remove from the game any Disciples thought to be idle, at his discretion, at the end of a dynasty (rule 9)
- the Gadfly may assign roles to Disciples who have none (rule 11)
- the Gadfly may make proposals without beginning with the words "I humbly submit" (rule 13)

Failed 5-5 (Two voters on walkabout). Failed by smith, 5th of July at 13:38.

Edict: The Fly Escapes

As Gadfly I use the power I share with the Philosopher-King to declare a Proposal formatting edict.

I think five is an unlucky number (especially if it is the five words: "The Philosopher-King gets a fly-swatter.")

Therefore, from hence forth Proposal Titles may not be exactly five words long.

Proposal: I'm not good at Athenian ad libbing

In Rule 11, capitalize all instances of the word "aspect." Then change the text

Disciples must keep the three Aspects of eir souls in balance. If at any time one of a Disciple's Aspects has a value greater than or equal to the sum of eir other two Aspects, e must reduce eir greatest Aspect by one third of its value, rounded down.

If the Aspect being reduced is also the Aspect this Disciple's role allows em to increase daily, e may increase eir other two Aspects each by half the value (rounded down) the greatest Aspect was reduced.

to

If at any time one of a Disciple's Aspects has a value greater than or equal to the sum of eir other two Aspects, e is Imbalanced, and his greatest Aspect is Excessive.

Whenever any Aspect's value is being changed (except as described in this paragraph and the following paragraph), it must first be checked whether that Disciple is Imbalanced. If e is found to be Imbalanced, eir greatest Aspect must be reduced by one third its value (rounded up) BEFORE the change is made to the Aspect. Note that the amount being subtracted is rounded up, NOT the result. If a Disciple's Aspects were 1,0,0, then rounding down would subtract 0, resulting in an infinite loop. Also, the parenthetical above prevents infinite loops. Perhaps a bit pedantic, but it's all about loophole quashing.

If an Imbalanced Disciple's Excessive Aspect is one e may convert to another, it will be automatically converted in multiples of 5 until either 1) it is no longer Excessive or 2) the conversion can no longer be made. If the conversion can't be made and that Aspect is still Excessive, it is reduced by 1/3 as described above.

Didn't begin with "I humbly submit" Failed by Cayvie, 1st of July at 11:27.

Proposal: Out of the Agora

I humbly submit that a rule, named Out of the Agora be added reading thus:

While a Disciple is Out of the Agora, this shall be marked in the sidebar by putting eir name in a separated list. A Disciple Out of the Agora is considered to be idle, except for purposes of this rule and rule 6.

---

I also submit that the rule 17 - Walkabout the text that reads:

While a Disciple is On Walkabout, this shall be marked in the sidebar by putting eir name in italics. A Disciple On Walkabout is not allowed to make official posts, vote, respond to a Walkabout Invitation, or have eir GNDT entry altered in any way, and quorum is calculated as if Disciples On Walkabout were idle. Indeed, the game effects of being On Walkabout are almost identical to those of being idle. Votes cast by a Disciple prior to going On Walkabout do not count until that Disciple returns.

When the 24 hours for a particular Walkabout are up, the Disciples who went on it return to normal play. In addition, their WalkVotes? values are each increased by 1.

shall be altered to:

While a Disciple is On Walkabout, it’s considered to be Out of the Agora.

When the 24 hours for a particular Walkabout are up, the Disciples who went on it cease to be Out of the Agora. In addition, their WalkVotes? values are each increased by 1.

Self-Killed. Failed by Cayvie, 1st of July at 11:24.

Notes:

1. I've changed all ocurrences of "the The Gadfly" to "The Gadfly", under the rule allowing admins to correct typos.

2. I've changed Cayvie's enactment of the State of the Republic, since e disregarded the clause about Kevan's wishs to implement the automatic mechanism.

I'm going On Walkabout

To ponder the fickleness of fortune. It'll be a nice stroll among the olive groves.

Proposal: Pieces of Eight

I humbly submit that justice should be more evenly and subtly distributable, and also better worded.

Reword Polemarchus' Law to:-

Often, a Disciple may choose to examine the other Disciples, considering their recent conduct within the Republic. Upon doing so, the examining Disciple may increment or decrement any of those Disciples' Aspects by one, a maximum of five times.

Passed 8-1 (there are only 13 Disciples not on walkabout currently). Reached Quorum. Enacted by Cayvie, 1st of July at 11:23.

Clarification of Polemarchus's Law

At present, Polemarchus's Law reads:

If a Disciple feels that another Disciple deserves a change in their soul's aspects, as a result of their behaviour in the Republic, then they may add or subtract five from any one of those aspects, to a minimum of zero. This may be done often by a single Disciple.

Where do people stand on a question of rule interpretation -- may a Disciple once per day change the soul aspects of just one other Disciple, or may a Disciple once per day change the soul aspects of every other Disciple as long as they only change each Disciple once that day?

Proposal: Every Child Left Behind

I humbly submit that rule 16 - The Academy be changed from:

Any Disciple with 50 or more knowledge points is a member of the Academy.

to:

Any Disciple with 30 or more knowledge points is a member of the Academy.

I like the academy/debate idea but I think 50 is just too high a requirement when there is no clear way for anyone but Guardians to raise their knowledge except by participating in a debate. Also note that, the way rule 15 is written, while any disciple can join a debate, only academy members can actually argue, thus making it nearly impossible for a non-academy disciple to make the sort of comment that will prompt spontaneous awards of knowledge from the grading academy members.

Passed 7-3 (there are only 13 Disciples not on walkabout currently). Reached Quorum. Enacted by Cayvie, 1st of July at 11:17.

Proposal: The Socratic Method

I humbly submit that the following modification be made to rule 15, entitled "Debate". If this proposal passes, the block-quoted text shall be added to the end of the rule's third paragraph:

The initial argument of the debate must be posed in the form of a Socratic Dialogue. The opinion of the poster must be expressed through the character of Socrates, who in the dialogue outwits the wrong-headed character Simplicio.

This is in keeping with our Platonic and Athenian traditions.

Failed 4-7 (there are only 13 Disciples not on walkabout currently). Could not reach Quorum. Failed by Cayvie, 1st of July at 11:14.

I request to be Idled

and then do that.

I'm going on holiday, should be back in about two weeks.

Have fun in Athens, folks.

Proposal: The Philosopher-King gets a fly-swatter

replace the current text of rule 10 with:

There is a Disciple who is called The Gadfly. The Gadfly uses a distinct Veto icon, with which e is allowed to veto in the same manner as the Philosopher-King, which is called The Gadfly's Seal (the icon may be added here by The Gadfly). Each seal icon may only be changed by its wielder.

The Philosopher-King and The Gadfly may overturn a veto imposed by the other. They do so by posting eir veto icon as a direct response comment to the other's veto. This may only be done if all Proposals subsequent to the one vetoed are still pending. The vetoed Proposal then reverts to pending status. Once a veto has been overturned on a Proposal, that Proposal may not be vetoed again.

Disciple Smith is the current The Gadfly.

Passed 9-2. Reached Quorum. Enacted by Cayvie, 1st of July at 11:09.

Proposal: You Owe Me Nothing in Return

Something has just slipped the mind of the great Philosopher-King. He goes back and checks some dialogues. Ah, yes! The lives of the auxiliaries and guardians were physically and mentally grueling. Only the producers were allowed the time for leisure, even though we all know they are morally depraved and irrational.

• Therefore, he haughtily submits that the following be encoded as a rule entitled “Gruel”:

Occasionally, the Philosopher-King may issue an edict in which e details some sort of formatting limit to what counts as a legal proposal (e.g. All legal proposals must not exceed five hundred words). The edicts shall be displayed as a list in the last paragraph of this rule.

• And a GNDT column added entitled “Property” with the following accompanying rule encoded also entitled “Property”:

Disciples may purchase land, buildings, slaves, cheese, and a few other favorite things with their Gold. Whenever a new piece of property is proposed to be added to the list below, the proposer must use the format [Name of Property]: {Price in gold} – (Any special effects or limitations it might carry). The following is a list of possible things they might purchase and add under their “Property” field in the GNDT:

House: 10 – Only producers may purchase a house as auxiliaries and guardians live in state sanctioned barracks and dorms, respectively. Disciples who own a house may ignore up to one edict issued by the Philosopher-King.

Slaves: 25 – Disciples who own slaves may often add five to their Gold. Whenever a Disciple makes such an addition to their gold as the result of owning slaves, for the subsequent 24-hour period each Disciple not owning slaves may decrease the slave-using Disciple’s honor by the number of slave-owning Disciples.

Passed 9-5. Reached Quorum. Enacted by smith, 30th of June at 21:22.

Proposal: Plato said it so it must be true

I humbly submit that the following should be enshrined as a rule, entitled State of the Republic:

The State of the Republic is automatically tracked in the GNDT. The perfectly just Republic reflects in its state the states of the souls of its inhabitants; thus, it, too, is judged on its appetitive, spirited and rational aspects, and its values in all of these aspects is the mean average of the value of the aspects of all its citizens, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Any Disciple whose primary aspect (that is, the aspect in which they have the highest value) matches that of the Republic may often raise that aspect by 2. If a Disciple’s least significant aspect matches the most significant aspect of the Republic, then they may occasionally raise any of their aspects by 5. If at any time one of the Republic’s aspects has a value greater than or equal to the sum of its other two Aspects, all Disciples must reduce their value (or have their value reduced) in that Aspect by 10.

If ever the Republic’s aspects all exceed 200, then either the Disciple with the smallest absolute difference between their most and least significant aspects, or the Disciple with the greatest combined total in all three aspects, may declare victory – the first to do so is considered the victor. The other may elect to become the Gadfly.

Upon enactment of this proposal, the GNDT is to be adapted so that the State of the Republic is shown and automatically updated whenever the GNDT is changed by a Disciple. If Disciple Kevan intimates that this is impossible, or that he is unwilling to do so, then the first paragraph of the proposal is adapted to read:

The State of the Republic is tracked in the GNDT. The perfectly just Republic reflects in its state the states of the souls of its inhabitants; thus, it, too, is judged on its appetitive, spirited and rational aspects, and its values in all of these aspects is the mean average of the value of the aspects of all its citizens. It may be re-calculated by any Disciple at any time, but must be recalculated immediately before any gamestate action is performed that relies upon its values.

I know early victory conditions are often frowned upon, but… 200 is a lot.

Enacted at 9-3 by Cayvie at 8:48 on June 30.

Proposal: A Pair of Pathetic Peripatetics

I humbly submit that walking is good for the constitution as well as the soul, and that discussing matters political and philosophical while walking is an excellent pastime.

Add a column to the GNDT entitled WalkVotes, and set everyone's Walkvotes values to 0.

Add a rule to the ruleset entitled Walkabout, with the following text:

Occasionally, a Disciple may make a non-Proposal official post, called a Walkabout Invitation, to the blog that includes, in the title, the phrase "going On Walkabout". For 8 hours after the posting of this Walkabout Invitation, any Disciple may post a comment in response to it. 8 hours after the posting of this Invitation, if at least two Disciples other than the poster of the Invitation have posted a comment to it, then, for the next 24 hours, the poster of the Walkabout Invitation, along with all Disciples who posted a comment to it, are considered to be On Walkabout.

While a Disciple is On Walkabout, this shall be marked in the sidebar by putting eir name in italics. A Disciple On Walkabout is not allowed to make official posts, vote, respond to a Walkabout Invitation, or have eir GNDT entry altered in any way, and quorum is calculated as if Disciples On Walkabout were idle. Indeed, the game effects of being On Walkabout are almost identical to those of being idle. Votes cast by a Disciple prior to going On Walkabout do not count until that Disciple returns.

When the 24 hours for a particular Walkabout are up, the Disciples who went on it return to normal play. In addition, their WalkVotes values are each increased by 1.

At any time, a Disciple with at least 1 WalkVote may subtract 1 from eir WalkVotes to cast an extra vote on a proposal. The comment in which this extra vote is cast must include the phrase "Spending a WalkVote".

Enacted at 9-2 by Cayvie at 8:43 on June 30.

Proposal: The Academey

I humbly submit the following text, to be incorporated as a rule entitled "The Academy" if the pending proposal entitled "The Debate" passes.

Any Disciple with 50 or more knowledge points is a member of the Academy.

Enacted at 9-4 by Cayvie at 15:20 on June 29.

Proto-Proposal

I've made a proposal and saved it as a draft. Does anyone have any comments on it before I post it?

Proposal: The debate

I humbly sumbit that we create a rule titled "Debate", with the following text:

Any Disciple may often (once per day, but no more than once every six hours) commence a Debate in the Academy by posting an entry to the main page titled "Debate: X" where X is the subject of the debate in the question.

Debates are either Open or Closed, and default to Open.

The body of the post shall contain the initial argument of the Debate.

Any Disciple may join a Debate by posting a comment in the thread which contains the phrase "I concur" or "I dissent", where these phrases connote agreement or disagreement with either the initial argument or premise of the debate or subsequent rebuttals and counter-arguments. Any member of the Academy who has joined an Open Debate may post further comments on the thread in question if further argumentation is necessary. A member of the Academy who has commenced a Debate is considered to have joined that Debate as a matter of definition.

Once 48 hours have passed after the first Disciple has joined a Debate, any member of the Academy may Close a Debate by posting the phrase "I move to close debate" in that thread. No further argumentation may be posted to a Closed Debate. Once a Debate is Closed, the administration should mark that post in some way so to denote that the Debate has finished.

When a Debate is Closed, all members of the Academy should read through the Debate, and then are allowed to score the Debate by posting a comment on the Closed debate summarizing eir judgment of the facts, presentation, and aesthetics, as well as some text denoting a change of score of each debating member by as much as five points in one and only one field (either Gold, Honor, or Knowledge) as the scoring member sees fit. Each scoring member must then make the accompanying changes in the GNDT, with a comment reflecting the adjustment and the Debate in question. A Disciple may not score eir own arguments.

Enacted at 14-1 by Cayvie at 15:16 on June 29.

Proposal: Polemarchus' Law

I humbly submit that justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies.

Enact a new Rule, "Polemarchus' Law":-

If a Disciple feels that another Disciple deserves a change in their soul's aspects, as a result of their behaviour in the Republic, then they may add or subtract five from any one of those aspects, to a minimum of zero. This may be done often by a single Disciple.

Enacted at 11-5 by Cayvie at 15:11 on June 29.

Unidleing

I'm back. Quorum is 9.

Proposal: A Finite Soul

I humbly submit that in Rule 11 (The Republic), the final bulleted list be replaced with:-

If a Disciple has a role, they may convert one aspect of their soul into another - decreasing one by five to increase the other by five. (If the former cannot be decreased, the other may not be increased.) This act may be performed no more frequently than "often".

• Producers may convert Knowledge into Gold.
  
• Auxiliaries may convert Gold into Honor.
  
• Guardians may convert Honor into Knowledge.

If "The Freckled Hand" failed, replace "often" with "once per day", in the above changes.

Also remove the paragraph beginning "Disciples are assigned roles as follows:" and replace it with "If a Disciple has no Role, the Philosopher-King may assign them one."

Enacted at 9-5 by Cayvie at 15:07 on June 29.

Proposal: Soldiers get bored in peacetime

I hubly submit that the following is true, and should become a rule entitled 'Duelling'

The following may only be done if there exists a state of peace.
At present, there is a state of peace, but the Philosopher-King may declare war at any time, negating the state of peace.
Any Auxilliary may often publically insult another Auxilliary by posting to the blog frontpage to that effect; if the insulted Auxilliary does not reply with a challenge for a duel within 24 hours, then eir Honour is reduced by DICE10. The Auxilliary that issued the isult must then respond with an acceptance to duel within 24 hours of said response, or have eir honour reduced by 2DICE10. If either the insult or the challenge to duel are deemed to have high poetic merit by the Gadfly or the Philosopher-King, then the writer of same shall have eir Gold increased by 5.

If the duel is accepted, then any Disciple may roll 2DICEX for each Auxilliary, where X is equal to (Gold + 2*Honour + Knowledge). The Auxilliary whose result is higher has eir honour increased by 5; and additionally may increase eir honour by the difference between eir honour and the other Auxilliary's honour, if the latter is higher. The Auxilliary whose result is lower has eir Gold reduced by one-third the difference in the results, rounding down. If e has insufficient Gold, then ey are considered to be idle for 48 hours while ey recover.

Not sure this is in theme, but it's 'something to do'.

Failed for not beginning with "I humbly submit" by Cayvie at 15:01 on June 29.

Proposal: Deferring to the Gadfly

I humbly submit that the following should occur:

First, change the name of rule 10 to 'the Gadfly' (from 'the the Gadfly'), and similiarly strike extra 'the's from the ruleset wherever two appear in a row.

Second, append to that rule the following text:

If an Illuminatus who votes DEFERENTIAL adds the seal of the Gadfly to eir voting comment, then eir vote shall be counted the same as the Gadfly's rather than that of the Philosopher-King's. If the Gadfly has not voted on the proposal, or votes DEFERENTIAL, than the Gadfly's vote shall be considered to be the opposite of the Philosopher-King's, i.e. if the Philospher-King's vote is FOR, then the Gadfly's vote, and the votes of all those deferring to the Gadfly, shall be counted as AGAINST.

Failed at 6-9 by Cayvie at 15:00 on June 29.

Proposal: A Modest Proposal

Add a new rule, entitled "A Modest Proposal" which reads as follows:

Modesty is a trait to be valued in any republic. Any rule change proposal posted which does not begin with the words "I humbly submit" automatically FAILS, unless it is posted by the Philosopher-King. Any player, other than the Philosopher-King, who puts forth such a proposal may be docked 1 unit of honor by each active player.

Reached quorum 9-4. Enacted by Angry Grasshopper, 28th of June at 20:44.

New Disciple

The Philosohper-King has attracted another Disciple. Welcome Encesantiams.

Quorum rises to 8.

Proposal: Moderation of hastily written Proposals

If Proposal: Moderation of the Sesquipedalian Soul passed, change the text

one third of its value.

to

one third of its value, rounded down.

If 75th Trombone has Honor, decrease it by 1.

:P

Reached quorum 11-0. Enacted by Angry Grasshopper, 28th of June at 20:31.

Proposal: Moderation of the Sesquipedalian Soul

If Proposal: Comfy Chair passed, append to the rule "The Republic" the following paragraphs:

Disciples must keep the three Aspects of eir souls in balance. If at any time one of a Disciple's Aspects has a value greater than or equal to the sum of eir other two Aspects, e must reduce eir greatest Aspect by one third of its value.

If the Aspect being reduced is also the Aspect this Disciple's role allows em to increase daily, e may increase eir other two Aspects each by half the value (rounded down) the greatest Aspect was reduced.

Reached quorum 9-3. Enacted by Angry Grasshopper, 28th of June at 20:29.

Proposal: The Freckled Hand

Add a new rule, entitled Timespans, to the ruleset, with the following text:

The following words are defined to mean the following things whenever they appear in this ruleset:

Often: Once per day, but no more than once in six hours.
Occasionally: Once per week, but no more than once in twenty-four hours.

Upon enactment of this proposal, replace the phrase "Once per day" with the word "Often" wherever it appears in the ruleset, except in this rule.

If you allow something to happen "once per day", it leads to situations where people will wait until midnight to do whatever they want, and then do it again a minute later. If you say "once every 24 hours", it makes people have to stick to a rigid schedule to get the most out of their ability. I think this wording sets a decent compromise between the two.

Reached quorum 13-0. Enacted by Angry Grasshopper, 28th of June at 20:25.

Proposal: A Scandal In Monrovia

Remove from rule 10 the phrase "This rule may not be repealed in the Ascension Address."

Just so we don't forget and leave it in.

Reached quorum 9-2. Enacted by Angry Grasshopper, 28th of June at 20:22.

This is not an official post.

Edit edit edit, hey I can edit it all I want because it's not a proposal. *snerk*

Unidling!

Not only am I unidling here, I'm unidling on the Switch progress.

Now that you've had your fun...

Can you unidle me please?

Unidle please.

Thanks

I've unidled myself too.

As well as processed all the requests of non-admins.

I've unidled myself

Unidlification

Unidle me, please.

Unidling

Proposal: Comfy Chair

• add to the GNDT four columns: the first shall be entitled "role", the second shall be entitled "gold", the third shall be entitled "honor", and the fourth shall be entitled "knowledge".

• add a rule entitled "The Republic" in which:

In The Republic, the perfectly just city correlates with the perfectly just soul. Each of its citizens must strive to moderate the three aspects of eir soul: the appetitive, the spirited, and the rational. In this way, the city must also moderate its tripartite citizenry.
Gold shall represent the Disciple's appetitive nature.
Honor shall represent the Disciple's spirited nature.
Knowledge shall represent the Disciple's rational nature.
Whenever a new Disciple joins the game eir values for each of these fields defaults to 50. Each Disciple is assigned a role. The possible roles are: producer, auxiliary, or guardian. Disciples are assigned roles as follows: upon enactment of this proposal and whenever a new Disciple joins the game, the Philosopher-King shall make a GNDT-based dice roll in which the probabilities a given Disciple becomes a Producer is 1 : 2, an Auxiliary is 1 : 3, and a Guardian is 1 : 6. No Disciple may change eir role unless otherwise specified in the ruleset.
Producers may once per day increase their "gold" by five.
Auxiliaries may once per day increase their "honor" by five.
Guardians may once per day increase their "knowledge" by five.

• upon enactment of this proposal:
• 1. the Philosopher-King is automatically assigned the role of Guardian
• 2. set each Disciple's values in gold, honor, and knowledge to 50 each
• 3. set the Philosopher-King's values in gold, honor, and knowledge to 100 each
• 4. change all instances of the title "Adversary" to "The Gadfly". If the current Adversary accompanies eir vote with the following comment "I like adversary just fine, thank you very much." then this change does not go through.

Reached quorum 7-2. Enacted by Cayvie, 28th of June at 5:22.

Ascension Address

Well, it would appear that our old, great, and (even) wise teacher Socrates has gone and offed himself with the old one-two; hemlock and tea. Although it is unclear how exactly Socrates wanted his legacy remembered, I've decided that since I wrote the most stuff about him, I'm just going to go ahead and assume he liked me best. I'll try to run the Academy with his memory as my guide and continue the pursuit of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. Nevertheless, there needs must be some changes first, because there's a whole lotta mess in this here Athens. It doesn't look very ... Athensy. Furthermore, I would like some folks to get started on building that Acropolis that Socrates liked to talk about whenever he had too much drink.
...
Oh, ummm, it would appear that I am talking to a blank wall. Hmmm, I shall convine a council of Socrates' closest and most studious pupils as soon as I have found them.

Official Proclamation:

change Illuminatus Rex to Philosopher-King
change Illuminatus to Disciple
change the colour scheme to something more Athensy
repeal rules 11 through 20 (including, but not limited to, both rules 17)
clear the gamestate such that only player names appear thereon

Me too

Unidle me too, please.

Unidlement

I'd like to be unidled for the next dynasty.

Note to admins

I changed the script for the Oldest Pending Proposal to look for the class="adminEdit statement rather than the image file, so that the 'other' class specified in the ruleset can be used on things that are neither passed, failed, or vetoed (like all the proposals currently made by idle Illuminati)

I also added italic natively to the adminEdit class in the stylesheet, so you no longer need the i tags.

In another move, I also changed the width of the content to proportional, rather than fixed. Mostly because on my monitor, it was rediculously narrow. If this looks odd on anybody's computer, yell and I'll change it back. You can check the difference by going into the archive, since I only republished the frontpage.
In the final change while I was in the template, I put the dashed lines around blockquotes back.

Proposal: I see your Schwartz is as big as mine

Rename Rule 10 to "The Adversary" and have it read:-

There is an Illuminatus who is called the Adversary. The Adversary has the same powers as the Illuminatus Rex except that the Adversary uses a distinct Veto icon, which is called the Adversary's Seal (the icon may be added here by the Adversary). Each seal icon may only be changed by its wielder.

The Illuminatus Rex and the Adversary may overturn a veto imposed by the other. This may only be done if all Proposals subsequent to the one vetoed are still pending. The vetoed Proposal then reverts to pending status. Once a veto has been overturned on a Proposal, that Proposal may not be vetoed again.

The Dynasty is still considered to belong to the Illuminatus Rex alone, but if the Adversary is able to achieve victory in that Dynasty, then its title is changed in the Dynastic records to bear the name of the Adversary instead.

Illuminatus Smith is the current Adversary.

This rule may not be repealed in the Ascension Address.

Upon passage of this Proposal Illuminatus Aaron has achieved victory in this dynasty, unless he has declared a preference for the Adversary role, in which case replace 'Smith' with 'Aaron' in rule 10, and Illuminatus Smith has achieved victory instead. In either case, no Declaration of Victory is required and the Ascension Address may be posted at any time.

Passed 3-0. Reached Quorum. Aaron wins. Enacted by smith, 27th of June at 19:18.

Proposal: A Cloaking Robe of Elvenkind Hangs in My Wardrobe Behind

upon the passage of this proposal the player who proposed this proposal is the only player who may declare victory and implicitly does so, at which point the proposer of this proposal ascends as victor as per rule #9 as if the traditional hiatus enumerated in that rule has just concluded.

Failed 1-2. Could not be enacted without a Change of Vote. Failed by smith, 27th of June at 19:14.

Call for Judgement

When "Imminentizing the Eschaton" passed, I, Rodney, was idled. I belive that this was illegal, because I posted "400 for all". I don't really have any proof of this fact, so you'll have to have faith. If this CFJ passes then the player know as Rodney shall be unidled. If it doesn't then this CFJ will cease to be a CFJ because it would have been illegal.

Eschaton gets AG, too.

AngryGrasshopper goes idle, as his plot isn't, and his proposal is illegal. Sorry, AG.

Enter the Eschaton

Hmm, when "Imminentizing the Eschaton" passed ("If it has been more than 48 hours since an Illuminatus last made an official post, e becomes idle."), the only four people who'd made an official post within the previous 48 hours were Smith, Aaron, Angry Grasshopper and myself - everyone else was immediately set idle when the proposal enacted, if I'm reading it right. (With the arguable exception of whoever made the two anonymous Organisation Power proposals.)

Since the rule says "becomes idle" rather than "may be set idle", then it's an automatic effect.

And I seem to have been belatedly caught by this by not noticing it before now, and having left a gap of 48 hours with no official posts, over the weekend.

Proposal: Because the rules say I have to

Remove rule 20.

Not a proposal, Paladin was idle.

Proposal: One Step Further

Rewrite Rule 20 to read as follows:

If it has been more than 48 hours since an Illuminatus last made a proposal, e becomes idle. If a proposal fails, the Illuminatus who proposed it becomes Idle. Idle Illuminati may not be unidled. This rule is automatically repealed on Ascension.

Illegal as poster was idle. Not a proposal.

Proposal: This is an Official Post

append the following paragraph to the end of Rule #1:

Any proposal not written in British-English shall be considered typographically erroneous.

Self-failed. Failed by smith, 17th of June at 19:12.

Plot for plotting: The Catholic Church

This is not an illegal plot.

Proposal: Obligatory proposal zero

Append the following title to Rule 17, "Titles":

An Obnoxious Git may not cast a FOR vote on a pending proposal unless the sum of all of the digits of the timestamp of the posted proposal in question is divisible by eleven.

In clarification, if said timestamp is of the form HH:MM:SS, then the sum H+H+M+M+S+S must be divisible by eleven in order for any Obnoxious Git to legally cast a FOR vote on that pending proposal.

Change Smith's Title to "Obnoxious Git".

Illegal. Not a proposal. Continue on.
--Excalaubr