On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 08:52 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:33 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Proposal: Support Plutocracy > >> (AI = 2, please) > >> > >> Create a rule titled "Support Plutocracy" with Power 2 and this text: > >> > >> A player CAN, with 4 support, change a democratic decision > >> with Adoption Index less than 3 to be ordinary. > > > > Isn't this broken due to the first paragraph of rule 2196? > > I like the idea, though. > > Possibly, but only for proposals with AI >= 2; you could still > reverse an ordinary-to-democratic conversion. > > More generally, how much substantive gamestate is actually defined at > Power < 2 nowadays? Inquiry and equity cases, yes, but encouraging > high-caste players to focus there is probably a bad idea. Someone might > want to review Power = 2 rules and look for portions that can reasonably > be separated out into lower-Power rules.
Actually, one proto I've had in my mind for a while is to raise the automatic-democratisation bar from "at least 2" to "more than 2". A lot of our gameplay is stagnating at power 2 in attempts to lock down everything against low-power scams; so either we should open up power 2 to ordinariness, or else, as you suggest, see what can be moved down from 2 safely. The problem, I think, is that actual gameplay is normally tied into wins, or assets, or something that's related to the game itself and can affect things, which is hardly surprising. This means that they can all indirectly affect wins, which is secured at 2, so everything gets pulled up to 2 by inference. Now we have Win by Junta, I think it's probably safe to desecure things like points down to 1: OK, so they could be scammed by a power-1 rule to win the game, but a power-1 rule now has a mechanism of granting players a win without having to use such indirection (a good thing, it reduces the amount of wrecked gamestate caused by a successful scam that is trying to force a win somehow). In order to continue the theme, it may be a good idea to add in a "win without objection" rule, specifically to catch dependent action scams (to prevent them dealing gamestate damage while forcing through their wins). In other words, give scammers a non-damaging way to win with their scams, and they'll take it. You can then desecure the damaging ways, to allow for more interesting gameplay, because the scamsters have a different way than disrupting gamestate to achieve their aims. -- ais523
