User talk:Redtara/Dynasty victory

"A Dynasty is usually headed by one Citizen known as the Drone. If there is no Drone, the dynasty is a metadynasty."

Suggested add: If there is more than one Drone, the dynasty is a Coregency. (Has happened a couple of times over the years; might as well formalise it.) Josh (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest going the other way and removing "If there is no Drone, the dynasty is a metadynasty."; the definitions of metadynasty and coregency have no importance to gameplay, it seems like it's only for record-keeping purposes. Pokes (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"A given Citizen may make no more than one DoV in any 120 hour period."

This has a (very) edge case issue where a player wins a dynasty, they pass the mantle, the next dynasty starts, and they immediately achieve Victory but can't declare due to their timer still being running. We've had successful DoVs within the first few days of a dynasty more than once; it may be an acceptable loss for tidier wording but it would be nice to have an AA-reset in here somewhere as well. Josh (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We could append "within a single dynasty." Redtara (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Every Citizen may vote on each pending DoV to indicate whether they agree that its author has achieved victory in the current Dynasty."

This might not be necessary, as the rule Votable Matters already defined a DoV as a votable matter and explains what that means, although it is nice to have ruletext that nudges players towards voting on DoVs in good faith. Josh (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"A Pending DoV may be Enacted by any Admin if any of the following are true:"

I would love to add the following to this:

• If every Citizen has voted FOR it.

Josh (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"During an Interregnum, BlogNomic is on Hiatus"

This replicates an existing problem in the ruleset: one of the features of Interregnums is that you can carry out dynastic actions, where permitted, during them (effectively allowing Interregnums to act as a dynastic clean-up space), but the glossary keyword for hiatus kinda-sorta forbids it. I personally think that Interregnums should be like a hiatus but not actually be a hiatus, but if the objective is to cut down on words then other solutions may be more elegant. Josh (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"During an Interregnum, proposals cannot be submitted or resolved, and DoVs cannot be submitted." Could DoVs already can't be submitted during an interregnum because of the "in the current Dynasty" wording, but the fact that it's based on belief complicates that. Redtara (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"and any pending DoVs automatically fail."

Something can't 'automatically fail' - failing is a subset or administering, and needs to be an action carried out by an admin - 'is unpopular and cannot be popular' is what's needed here. Josh (talk)

Good point -- in that case this is also problem with the current ruleset. As a fix I'd rather adopt the self-kill/veto mechanism of adding it as a fail condition and adding "if no other DoV has been enacted in the current dynasty" to the enactment clause. Redtara (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

What about "any pending DoV can be failed by any Admin."? Makes the actor clear and doesn't require looking up popularity. Pokes (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"If they have not already done so, the Drone must do one of the following:"

Trying to get rid of 'must's is one of my hobbyhorses, what about "the Drone may do one of the following"? The only situation where the Drone wouldn't would be if they were delaying the game for some reason, or idle, in which case the 'must' can't do anything anyway. Pokes (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)