The Second Dynasty of card
27 September 2018 - 19 October 2018
Contents
Ascension Address
The extinction left no life behind; all that remains are computers and possibly robotic “life”.
Repeal all Dynastic rules and change “Monolith” to “Flynn” and “Ape” to “Program”
Players
The following players were active at the start of the Dynasty:
Brendan*, card*, derrick*, Kevan*, Trigon, Zaphod
The following players were active at the end of the Dynasty:
Brendan*, derrick*, Kevan*, Trigon, Zaphod
Final Ruleset
Proposals of Interest
- The Core Mechanic made a rule that was not meant to be followed; instead it would be code to be executed.
- Code Monkey allowed players to run JavaScript from the Master Control Program using a special website, also known as the Hardware.
- Gigo gave each player Input and Output GNDT values, defaulting to the first two and last two letters of their names.
- Clean Machine brought back cleanup proposals from the previous dynasty.
- The Unemperor created a special case rule that changed the way Deferentials work.
- Walls of Fire and Light gave each person a firewall, which was an 8x8 grid of characters.
- Forty Two created a way to change GNDT values as output of the Master Control Program.
- v0.1 created a very basic Master Control Program to read the GNDT.
- needs more randomization expanded the Master Control Program to include some random generation utilities.
- Clean Deterministic Hardware simplified how the MCP would run, and implemented random seeds.
- Front Door simplified the way Input and Output worked.
- dictionary of fire made more functions, relating to numberpads.
- Stay on Target! allowed players to target each other when running the MCP.
- In Like Flynn expanded the Access mechanic.
- Crown Joules gave every player GNDT-tracked Energy. If one player had more energy than any other player, they could win under this rule.
- Resting Energy set each player's Energy to 1 instead of 0, allowing for a win.
Ascension
When the proposal Resting Energy passed, Kevan adminned it. This proposal increased everyone's energy to 1 from 0. As the win condition was to have more energy than every other player combined, Kevan's choice to assign this energy one player at a time with himself first meant that he was able to achieve victory.
Commentary
I was just a spectator but I'm personally very skeptic that the victory was formally possible. The sentence that was attempted to be abused was "set the energy of each program to the default.", which I believe means that at the instant that the proposal is enacted, all of the energy of the programs are set to the default and then the admin just updates the gamestate-tracking elements (like the GNDT) to reflect that. On the same coin, if he enacted that proposal but didn't update the GNDT with the values, the game would still formally have those values changed, it's not like he has some godly power within the action of enactment to change the gamestate as he chooses (and even if he did, I still believe that it would have to have been changing all of the values at the same time and he couldn't do it any other way). Things that track the gamestate are very different from the actual gamestate itself. But anyways, that rant aside, I believe that it was actually a positive thing that he won because the dynasty had lost a lot of momentum (proposals had been sitting for 4 days without processing, for example) and I believe people had just gotten bored/demotivated with it. The game had gotten into Dormancy too. Still, I disagree how the victory was actually formally accomplished; but even Derrick, one of the other two players who FOR'd the DoV, also admitted to doubts about its legitimacy but also agreed with that it was better for the dynasty to just move on. Maybe coding is too boring/tedious to play with? I don't know. --Cuddlebeam (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I was short on spare time this dynasty, but it did feel like the programming aspect increased the effort required to even cast votes, to the point where the game started flagging. You couldn't reasonably vote on a code-change proposal without taking time to paste it into the MCP and check that it worked - although in retrospect we should probably have addressed that in the ruletext, so that a code-change proposal couldn't enact until a second person had confirmed that it compiled. Glad that we gave this theme a good run, though. --Kevan (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
