Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Proposal: Betty Ford, Here I Come

self-killed
failed by Hix

Adminned at 07 Feb 2007 12:38:32 UTC

A rule to emulate the drug factor in a star’s career.

If the Proposal titled “Fame and Fortune” failed, this Proposal does nothing.
If the Proposal titled “Wealth Beyond Measure III” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Create a column with three distinct blank spaces in the GNDT, said column to be entitled “Visits to Rehab”.

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 8, as tracked in the GNDT, before he can advance any further in fame, e must roll 2DICE6.  If e craps out, i.e. rolls 2, 3, or 12, e is considered to be Strung Out, and must go into Rehab. 

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 9, e must do the same as above, except roll 2DICE6 two times.

When an Actor reaches a fame level of 10, e must do the same as above, except roll 2DICE6 three times.

When in Rehab, an actor’s Wealth level decreases by ten percent, and e must also lose a level of Fame. That is, if e was at a fame level of 10 and had one million (insert unit of currency here) when e rolled, and e gets a 2, then, as tracked in the GNDT, is fame level drops to 9, and his wealth drops to nine hundred thousand (insert unit of currency here).

The “I’ve Learned My Lesson, Your Honor” Clause:  If an Actor loses a level of fame but then returns to that same level in the future, e does not have to roll for Rehab again.

If an actor goes to Rehab, e gets an X in the appropriate column in the GNDT next to is name.  If an Actor goes to Rehab three times, thereby having three Xs in is Rehab column, e is considered Washed Up, and is ineligible to win the game.

Comments

viewtyjoe:

02-06-2007 02:25:42 UTC

against
Even the most washed up actors can make a career out of their ashes.

peacefulwarrior:

02-06-2007 02:39:47 UTC

True, but this won’t ash anyone’s career, it will just be a temporary setback… unless they get really unlucky.

ChinDoGu:

02-06-2007 04:53:07 UTC

against I don’t want to be washed out from a couple of bad rolls again.  Like last dynasty.

Kevan:

02-06-2007 08:56:32 UTC

against

Josh:

02-06-2007 09:38:36 UTC

for Although a way of getting rid of the strikes would be welcome.

peacefulwarrior:

02-06-2007 13:07:29 UTC

Someone could propose that the strikes be erased if an Actor gets lots of good publicity, i.e. adopts an African baby or something.

snowballinhell7001:

02-06-2007 15:32:10 UTC

for because this has merit. I see this going places.

peacefulwarrior:

02-06-2007 15:33:08 UTC

Noob question: can I vote Yea on my own proposal?

Josh:

02-06-2007 15:43:00 UTC

‘Warrior, you’re automatically considered to have voted yes on your own proposal, unless you state otherwise.

spikebrennan:

02-06-2007 16:14:39 UTC

for

peacefulwarrior:

02-06-2007 16:27:19 UTC

here’s the quote I meant to put above the proposal:
 
“Oh, I don’t drink these days. I am allergic to alcohol and narcotics. I break out in handcuffs.”
Robert Downey Jr., actor.
Source: New York Post

Edometheus:

02-06-2007 16:28:46 UTC

I don’t like the idea of excluding people from winning the game… maybe this has been done before with success, but for now:  against

Hix:

02-06-2007 16:35:01 UTC

against meh.

“(insert unit of currency here)”????

Josh:

02-06-2007 16:35:58 UTC

COV:  against, because arbitrary denial of victory is silly.

peacefulwarrior:

02-06-2007 16:50:08 UTC

Hix, the insert unit of currency here thing is because the proposal Wealth, upon which this proposal is contingent, involves naming the unit of money we’re going to be using.

Hix:

02-06-2007 17:38:55 UTC

I know, but…  you should have done something about it, rather than leaving silly rules text.

Cosmologicon:

02-06-2007 18:35:55 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

02-06-2007 19:20:49 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

02-06-2007 20:09:49 UTC

for

But we’ll need some tricky way to remove the strikes. ;)

alethiophile:

02-06-2007 22:17:54 UTC

against I’ll vote For on a revised proposal with a way to remove strikes. As is, I don’t want to implement something that might make people ineligible for victory.

snowballinhell7001:

02-07-2007 02:25:32 UTC

This is dead anyway by default if one looks at “WBM III”.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-07-2007 17:30:18 UTC

It’s 4-9 now and will be innocuous if it passes. Can peacefulwarrior please self-kill it, or Doremi veto it to speed the queue?

snowballinhell7001:

02-07-2007 19:12:50 UTC

Would anybody who has voted “for” please change their vote to expedite things.

snowballinhell7001:

02-07-2007 19:13:16 UTC

CoV:  against

Angry Grasshopper:

02-07-2007 19:15:23 UTC

Err, well, since you ask so nicely…

against

peacefulwarrior:

02-07-2007 20:01:03 UTC

against CoV, self-kill, wah.