Arguments may range from the pragmatic (taking Spain brings us closer to ending the game and is therefore a positive step towards conclusion) to the abstract (the moves I make will have no impact on your life whatsoever)

NMR will be off and the phase length will be 7 days.

And the most important rule: The game will go on for as long as it needs to.

Is there a rule against Draugnar taking part?

Hahahaha. Now thats a looooong game.

Yeah, don't join if you will get fed up easily.

You can still use private chat to persuade people to post agreements or disagreements, but all official agreements and disagreements must go via public press.

If no disagreements are registered against your move (for example if a player remains silent) then you may carry it out.

I foresee a scenario where everyone just holds in place

Another brilliant idea from @SY ... ranks with the others. Let me flip a 7-sided coin to see whether I should join.

You realize that a solo is impossible by this set of rules?

It's basically a pacifist variant with some smokes and mirrors. Precisely why a Draugnar rule should be in place.

Can i play?

Yeah although I'm sure eventually someone will lose hope and say "take my territories". It is a game of mental attrition.

1. SYnapse
2. Tagger
3. ulytau?

I don't see any way that anyone could be eliminated. How do you see it playing out? Seems like it would end in a seven way draw, go on forever, or only have people eliminated who just get sick of dealing with it so agree to be eliminated. Note, I'm just trying to understand what anyone would get out of such a game.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Alderian, the game is about creating the most creative conversations. Also, you could private-message players and trade agreements, making it essentially a more formalised version of diplomacy ie. I'll agree to your move to Holland if you agree that I can move to Spain

"the game is about creating the most creative conversations"

I have an idea for an improvement ... skip the game part and just have the conversations.

If you had it so that you needed 50% or better support of a move for it to be allowed rather than 100%, this could be doable as a variant. However, if it gets down to three players, who will push someone to a solo? You'd have to be a master (god?) of manipulation to work a solo even in a 50% yea-vote game. Of course, someone trying to survive with one center and needs the bigger power's support hold to live might trade a yea vote for a support hold, but again, how do you end up in this situation? Won't the other two or three powers >1 center vote against the support hold?

I don't think you have a bad idea, it just isn't well formed. Please accept this post as some off-the-cuff constructive criticism.

Also, this isn't a philosophy variant, not what you've described. It's more akin to a UN variant, except in a fictional world where the UN is actually effective.

One player could guarantee no move ever took place but disagreeing no matter what. An all or nothing (not a requirement for a positive approval rating) won't work.

Do you need every single person to agree to your moves? So if one person disagrees with everything no one else can move? That's even worse than your messed up dice!

Draugnar and dubmdell beat me to it, I really need to refresh more often :)

I get the feeling SY gets these half-arsed ideas and, upon relaizing how fucked up they are, he feels the need to save face rather than admit he was wrong.

I get the feeling SY is just half-arsed.

(Whatever that means lol)

He and his best friend decided a mind was a terrible thing to waste, so they started sharing one... Then they found pot and beer and now all they share is a single SYnapse. (see what I did there? hehehe)

He had a friend? How? Not by throwing dice, that's for sure...

He discusses these things with his best friend in the mirror every morning.

The six-sided mirror.

Sorry, misread, I thought you said friends.

So, he discusses these things with his best friends in the six-sided mirror to be clear.

And all sixe of them share a mind. But each time they make a decision it is differnet than if they made the decisions all together at once, even though it is the same number of oipinions from the same people.

yeah, cause they are separate events.

I'll join, why not

Y'all have a lot of brain activity going on in a very unlikely place with those recent speculations.

I'm really tempted to troll the game, enter all holds from the begining and refuse to accept anyones orders, making it so that the game never moves on.

I think it would be awsome, but with your moves put up to vote. If they were to be accepted by all other players it would be impossible to win, even with join forces, while voting, while still requiring approval from other players wouldn't stuck the game so uch

And it would make it impossible to stuck the game like Fascec349 is thinking of ^

Maybe all but one player has to approve, that way the person your attacking can't just say no, but he has to convince at least one other to say no.

If full approvl (i.e. unanimous voting) were required, then fasces could very much do just that. That is the problem with SY's misfiring napses' concept.

I´m gonna try, if I may. :)

@Draug ... notice that he uses only the singular ... "napse" ... a telling choice.

Yep, and he shares it with all six of his die side personalities.