Difference between revisions of "The Third Dynasty of pokes"

From BlogNomic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(correct banner now)
(Wow this is fun)
Line 35: Line 35:
 
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/court_is_in_session Court Is In Session] allowed the Judge to create, but not yet resolve '''Cases''', the main mechanic by which money would shift between Clients and Attorneys.
 
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/court_is_in_session Court Is In Session] allowed the Judge to create, but not yet resolve '''Cases''', the main mechanic by which money would shift between Clients and Attorneys.
 
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/business_as_usual Business as Usual] added four businesses to the pool of clients.
 
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/business_as_usual Business as Usual] added four businesses to the pool of clients.
−
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/the_guilty_party The Guilty Party] finalized the Cases mechanic by giving Clients '''Villainy''' scores related to their reputations. Cases would be resolved by which client had the least '''guilt''', a variable between 0 and their villainy, at the end of the judges' arguing.
+
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/the_guilty_party The Guilty Party] put more detail into the Cases mechanic. It gave Clients '''villainy''' scores related to their reputations. For each case, it gave Clients '''guilt''', a variable between 0 and their villainy.
−
*  
+
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/lawyer_up Lawyer Up] gave Attorneys two stats: '''money''' and '''integrity'''. Attorneys could '''Set up Shop''' by setting their money and integrity such that the sum of their integrity and their money divided by 1,000 did not exceed 10.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/slush_puppy Slush Puppy] gave Attorneys the last of their stats: their '''Slush Funds''', tracked privately by the judge.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/gavelogue Gavelogue] finally completed how Cases would work. Each Attorney could vote on cases. FOR icons decreased their client's guilt by two. The winning party would take a sum of money from the loser and give a portion to the attorney.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/ill_allow_it I'll Allow It] added underhanded tactics. Players voting with AGAINST icons on a case would now decrease their client's guilt by one and increased their opponent's by one at the cost of one integrity.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/better_call_saul Better Call Saul] added consequences for having low integrity. Now, Clients could mistrust their Attorneys.
 +
 
 +
From this point on, most proposals are just quick afterthoughts, as gameplay shifted to the cases.
 +
 
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_adjourned Case Adjourned] raised the stakes by making each case only able to have Clients represented by Attorneys in them. The first case to adhere to this rule was Case 9.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/laundry_day Laundry Day] allowed players to launder money in their Slush Fund, giving 90% of it back to them.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/who_was_that_masked_barrister Who Was That Masked Barrister?] did away with some of the secrecy and inserted a list of representations into the ruleset.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/noisy_withdrawal Noisy Withdrawal] allowed dropping of Clients to be done by the Attorneys themselves.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/open_registration Open Registration] finished the work of the previous two and allowed the acquisition of clients to be done by the Attorneys as well.
 +
* [https://blognomic.com/archive/the_winner_takes_it_all The Winner Takes It All] instituted a win condition -- earning $100,000.
 +
 
 +
===Cases===
 +
 
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_no._1_isabel_chamberlain_v._james_chamberlain Isabel Chamberlain v. James Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Isabel
 +
#* Fine: $50,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_no._2_goldberg_technology_v._benjamin_chamberlain Goldberg Technology v. Benjamin Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Benjamin
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/anne_chamberlain_v._bananasoft Anne Chamberlain v. Bananasoft]
 +
#* Winner: Anne
 +
#* Fine: $100,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_4_x_express_v._anne_chamberlain X Express v. Anne Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: X Express
 +
#* Fine:  $89,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_5_robert_chamberlain_v._bananasoft Robert Chamberlain v. Bananasoft]
 +
#* Winner: Bananasoft
 +
#* Fine: $90,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_6_isabel_chamberlain_v._james_chamberlain Isabel Chamberlain v. James Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Isabel
 +
#* Fine: $54,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_7_bananasoft_v._joshua_chamberlain Bananasoft v. Joshua Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Bananasoft
 +
#* Fine: $70,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_8_connecticut_v._morgan_chamberlain_v Connecticut v. Morgan Chamberlain V]
 +
#* Winner: Connecticut
 +
#* Fine: $90,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_9_x_express_v._benjamin_chamberlain X Express v. Benjamin Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Benjamin
 +
#* Fine: $108,010
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_10_anne_v._goldberg_technology Anne Chamberlain v. Goldberg Technology]
 +
#* Winner: Goldberg Tech
 +
#* Fine: $80,100
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_11_x_express_v._casey X Express v. Casey Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: X Express
 +
#* Fine: $100,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_12_goldberg_technology_v._joshua Goldberg Technology v. Joshua Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Goldberg Tech
 +
#* Fine: $63,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_13_casey_v._morgan Casey Chamberlain v. Morgan Chamberlain V]
 +
#* Winner: Morgan
 +
#* Fine: $90,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_14_isabel_v._goldberg_technology Isabel Chamberlain v. Goldberg Technology]
 +
#* Winner: Goldberg Tech
 +
#* Fine: $70,260
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_15_robert_v._goldberg_technology Robert Chamberlain v. Goldberg Technology]
 +
#* Winner: Robert
 +
#* Fine: $81,000
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_16_x_express_v._elizabeth X Express v. Elizabeth Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Elizabeth
 +
#* Fine: $106,209
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_17_robert_v._casey Robert Chamberlain v. Casey Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Casey
 +
#* Fine: $72,900
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_18_elizabeth_v._anne Elizabeth Chamberlain v. Anne Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Elizabeth
 +
#* Fine: $72,090
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_19_bananasoft_v._elizabeth Bananasoft v. Elizabeth Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Elizabeth
 +
#* Fine: $104,400
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_20_elizabeth_v._bananasoft Elizabeth Chamberlain v. Bananasoft]
 +
#* Winner: Elizabeth
 +
#* Fine: $93,960
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_21_bananasoft_v._elizabeth Bananasoft v. Elizabeth Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Bananasoft
 +
#* Fine: $129,874
 +
# [https://blognomic.com/archive/case_22_state_of_connecticut_v._elizabeth Connecticut v. Elizabeth Chamberlain]
 +
#* Winner: Connecticut
 +
#* Fine: $116,886
  
 
==Ascension==
 
==Ascension==

Revision as of 23:27, 14 January 2019

Pokes-iii.png

23 November 2018 -

Ascension Address

Morgan Chamberlain, 1935-2018

Some relevant selections from the obituary:
Morgan Chamberlain IV, Connecticut financier, passed away on the 22nd of November, after a brief illness. They were 83.
Shortly after a string of high-profile business successes in the late 1980s, Morgan retired from public view and began a reclusive life. Public records show that Morgan remained in Connecticut for the rest of their life, but specifics of their whereabouts remained unknown outside of the Chamberlain family.
Dr. Chamberlain is survived by a spouse, Casey, of four years; eight children: Morgan, Benjamin, Elizabeth, Isabel, James, Joshua, Anne, and Robert, all from previous marriages, and twelve grandchildren.
Meanwhile, within the newly-reconstructed City Hall: Case number 2018-1022, regarding the estate of Morgan Chamberlain IV, begins to be heard. The courtroom is already at capacity with lawyers representing parties who would love to materialize any claim they have on the sizeable fortune of the deceased.
Replace “Activist” with “Attorney” and “Veteran” with “Judge”.

Players

The following players were active at the start of the Dynasty:

Brendan*, derrick*, Kevan*, pokes*, Trigon

Final Ruleset

Posts of Interest

Proposals and CFJs

  • The Clientele started the dynasty off with Clients, which would grow into the main draw of the dynasty. Each Client had a Worth (a dollar value) and a Reputation. Clients could be represented by Attorneys. This would be done by making requests to the judge.
  • Habeas Corpus reworded the clients rule completely and fleshed out the requests mechanic, allowing Attorneys to choose a set of clients they would like to represent and having the Judge choose secretly from that set.
  • Court Is In Session allowed the Judge to create, but not yet resolve Cases, the main mechanic by which money would shift between Clients and Attorneys.
  • Business as Usual added four businesses to the pool of clients.
  • The Guilty Party put more detail into the Cases mechanic. It gave Clients villainy scores related to their reputations. For each case, it gave Clients guilt, a variable between 0 and their villainy.
  • Lawyer Up gave Attorneys two stats: money and integrity. Attorneys could Set up Shop by setting their money and integrity such that the sum of their integrity and their money divided by 1,000 did not exceed 10.
  • Slush Puppy gave Attorneys the last of their stats: their Slush Funds, tracked privately by the judge.
  • Gavelogue finally completed how Cases would work. Each Attorney could vote on cases. FOR icons decreased their client's guilt by two. The winning party would take a sum of money from the loser and give a portion to the attorney.
  • I'll Allow It added underhanded tactics. Players voting with AGAINST icons on a case would now decrease their client's guilt by one and increased their opponent's by one at the cost of one integrity.
  • Better Call Saul added consequences for having low integrity. Now, Clients could mistrust their Attorneys.

From this point on, most proposals are just quick afterthoughts, as gameplay shifted to the cases.

  • Case Adjourned raised the stakes by making each case only able to have Clients represented by Attorneys in them. The first case to adhere to this rule was Case 9.
  • Laundry Day allowed players to launder money in their Slush Fund, giving 90% of it back to them.
  • Who Was That Masked Barrister? did away with some of the secrecy and inserted a list of representations into the ruleset.
  • Noisy Withdrawal allowed dropping of Clients to be done by the Attorneys themselves.
  • Open Registration finished the work of the previous two and allowed the acquisition of clients to be done by the Attorneys as well.
  • The Winner Takes It All instituted a win condition -- earning $100,000.

Cases

  1. Isabel Chamberlain v. James Chamberlain
    • Winner: Isabel
    • Fine: $50,000
  2. Goldberg Technology v. Benjamin Chamberlain
    • Winner: Benjamin
  3. Anne Chamberlain v. Bananasoft
    • Winner: Anne
    • Fine: $100,000
  4. X Express v. Anne Chamberlain
    • Winner: X Express
    • Fine: $89,000
  5. Robert Chamberlain v. Bananasoft
    • Winner: Bananasoft
    • Fine: $90,000
  6. Isabel Chamberlain v. James Chamberlain
    • Winner: Isabel
    • Fine: $54,000
  7. Bananasoft v. Joshua Chamberlain
    • Winner: Bananasoft
    • Fine: $70,000
  8. Connecticut v. Morgan Chamberlain V
    • Winner: Connecticut
    • Fine: $90,000
  9. X Express v. Benjamin Chamberlain
    • Winner: Benjamin
    • Fine: $108,010
  10. Anne Chamberlain v. Goldberg Technology
    • Winner: Goldberg Tech
    • Fine: $80,100
  11. X Express v. Casey Chamberlain
    • Winner: X Express
    • Fine: $100,000
  12. Goldberg Technology v. Joshua Chamberlain
    • Winner: Goldberg Tech
    • Fine: $63,000
  13. Casey Chamberlain v. Morgan Chamberlain V
    • Winner: Morgan
    • Fine: $90,000
  14. Isabel Chamberlain v. Goldberg Technology
    • Winner: Goldberg Tech
    • Fine: $70,260
  15. Robert Chamberlain v. Goldberg Technology
    • Winner: Robert
    • Fine: $81,000
  16. X Express v. Elizabeth Chamberlain
    • Winner: Elizabeth
    • Fine: $106,209
  17. Robert Chamberlain v. Casey Chamberlain
    • Winner: Casey
    • Fine: $72,900
  18. Elizabeth Chamberlain v. Anne Chamberlain
    • Winner: Elizabeth
    • Fine: $72,090
  19. Bananasoft v. Elizabeth Chamberlain
    • Winner: Elizabeth
    • Fine: $104,400
  20. Elizabeth Chamberlain v. Bananasoft
    • Winner: Elizabeth
    • Fine: $93,960
  21. Bananasoft v. Elizabeth Chamberlain
    • Winner: Bananasoft
    • Fine: $129,874
  22. Connecticut v. Elizabeth Chamberlain
    • Winner: Connecticut
    • Fine: $116,886

Ascension

Commentary

Dynastic Histories

Round One - Myke I - Lyndse I - Myke II - Kevan I - Anthony I - Est I - Kevan II - Damanor I - Kevan III - Cayvie I - Josh I - Keitalia I - SatyrEyes I - Metadynasty I - Cayvie II - Brendan I - Kevan IV - Knightking I - Chronos Phaenon I - TrumanCapote I - Knightking II - Quazie I - Simon I - AngryGrasshopper I - Rodney I - Aaron I - Josh II - Metadynasty II - Chronos Phaenon II - Excalabur I - Excalabur II - 75th Trombone I - Elias IX I - Metadynasty III - Angry Grasshopper II - Hix I - Thelonious I - Elias IX II - Rodney II - Clucky I - Doremi I - Chronos Phaenon III - Amnistar I - Clucky II - Amnistar II - Bucky I - Clucky III - Josh III - Kevan V - Hix II - Spikebrennan I - Jack I - Purplebeard I - Rodlen I - Yoda I - Amnistar III - Darknight I - Bucky II - Yoda II - Metadynasty IV - Arthexis I - Amnistar IV - Devenger I - Ais523 I - Ienpw III I - Qwazukee I - Klisz I - Metadynasty V - Bucky III - Wakukee I - Kevan VI - Ais523 II - Josh IV - Purplebeard II - Ais523 III - Ienpw III II - Klisz II - Lilomar I - Coppro I - Ais523 IV - Kevan VII - Brendan II - Alecto I - Josh V - Clucky IV - Purplebeard III - Kevan VIII - Ais523 V - Purplebeard IV - Yoda III - Bucky IV - Kevan IX - Bateleur I - Metadynasty VI - Coppro II - Ais523 VI - Cpt Koen I - Southpointingchariot I - Josh VI - Scshunt III - Quirck I - Clucky V - Bucky V - Kevan X - Josh VII - Kevan XI - Scshunt IV - RaichuKFM I - Larrytheturtle I - Skju I - Metadynasty VII - Purplebeard V - Spitemaster I - Josh VIII - RaichuKFM II - The Alien I - Benzene I - RaichuKFM III - Purplebeard VI - Kevan XII - Ayesdeeef I - Bucky VI - Kevan XIII - Josh IX - Mideg I - Kevan XIV - Brendan III - Kevan XV - Tantusar I - Josh X - Kevan XVI - Thrawn I - Brendan IV - Kevan XVII - Moonroof I - RaichuKFM IV - Larrytheturtle II - Brendan V - Kevan XVIII - Brendan VI - RaichuKFM V - Kevan XIX - Brendan VII - Kevan XX - Viv I - Pokes I - Sphinx I - Madrid I - Pokes II - Madrid II - Metadynasty VIII - Axemabaro I - Diabecko I - Kevan XXI - Diabecko & Card I - Kevan XXII - Derrick I - Card I - Madrid III - Card II - Kevan XXIII - Pokes III - Kevan XXIV - Trigon I - Derrick II - Kevan XXV - Derrick III - Farsight I - TyGuy6 I - Pokes IV - Madrid IV - TyGuy6 II - Kevan XXVI - The Duke of Waltham I - Josh XI - Clucky VI - Naught I - Metadynasty IX - Kevan XXVII - Josh XII - Clucky VII - Josh XIII - Bucky VII - Josh XIV - Kevan XXVIII - Lemonfanta I - Clucky VIII - Josh XV - Misty I - ais523 VII - Josh XVI - Kevan XXIX - Trapdoorspyder I - Metadynasty X - Brendan VIII - Brendan IX - Zack I - Misty II - Josh XVII - MadisonSilver I - Josh XVIII - Kevan XXX - Lendunistus I - Josh XIX - SingularByte I - Trapdoorspyder II - Bucky XIII - JonathanDark I - Trapdoorspyder III - Habanero I - JonathanDark II - Misty III - Metadynasty XI - Josh XX - Lemon II - Kevan XXXI - Josh XXI - Clucky IX - Vovix I - JonathanDark III - Zack II - JonathanDark IV - Josh XXII

Retrieved from "https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=The_Third_Dynasty_of_pokes&oldid=6427"