Thursday, February 08, 2007

Proposal: Betty Ford, Here I Come II

Cannot be enacted without CoV (2-14)
Failed by Hix

Adminned at 09 Feb 2007 13:50:10 UTC

Essentially the same as it was before, except I have removed the consequences both of having to go into Rehab and of being Washed Up, leaving them to be determined by some future proposal.

“Oh, I don’t drink these days. I am allergic to alcohol and narcotics. I break out in handcuffs.”
Robert Downey Jr.

If the Proposal titled “Wealth Beyond Measure IV” 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.

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.

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

02-08-2007 16:38:22 UTC

against This proposal does nothing, besides creating the GNDT column. It doen’t alter the Ruleset so it would make valid its lingering effects.

Clucky:

02-08-2007 17:20:15 UTC

against exactly. Plus, what does Washed up mean? This just seems a little… strange.

snowballinhell7001:

02-08-2007 17:24:37 UTC

This doesn’t alter the ruleset.  against

peacefulwarrior:

02-08-2007 17:24:46 UTC

People were objecting to the consequences of becoming Washed Up, so I thought I would just create the Rehab column and see if it evolved into something else in a later proposal.  I don’t really see how this is any different than creating the Wealth colum, which doesn’t seem to have much effect on anything else at the moment.

Edometheus:

02-08-2007 17:28:09 UTC

against
I like the idea, but I think another   method should be used to determine if one goes into rehab or not. For example, something tying to gossip stories could be used. Going into rehab could cost fame/wealth and tying it to gossip stories would make the game more interesting.

Cosmologicon:

02-08-2007 17:41:02 UTC

against

Kevan:

02-08-2007 18:42:35 UTC

against Even if this did enact an actual rule, requiring only luck to avoid negative traits doesn’t seem very interesting.

Hix:

02-08-2007 19:26:52 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

02-08-2007 21:19:45 UTC

Ah, right, the minor ‘you should create a rule that does these things’  problem.

I’m not sure there’s anything in the ruleset right now that says that the ruleset must contain all rules, though.

ChinDoGu:

02-08-2007 21:40:44 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

02-08-2007 21:42:13 UTC

against until the problems addressed above are fixed

Kevan:

02-08-2007 22:06:04 UTC

[Grasshopper] Rule 1.2 says that proposals should “change the Ruleset or Gamestate”, and Rule 1.5 says that admin enacting proposals should update “the Ruleset and/or Gamestate”.

Kevan:

02-08-2007 22:07:05 UTC

Also “This is the Ruleset for BlogNomic; all Actors must obey it.” in Rule 1.1. If there are any rules outside the ruleset, we don’t have to obey them. (If we did, I’d write down “Kevan wins” on a piece of paper.)

Doremi:

02-08-2007 22:08:25 UTC

against Needs to be a rule, ala ChronosPhaenon and Clucky

alethiophile:

02-08-2007 22:17:26 UTC

against per the doesn’t-alter-the-ruleset decision

Tiberias:

02-08-2007 23:52:52 UTC

against

viewtyjoe:

02-09-2007 03:17:18 UTC

against

Excalabur:

02-09-2007 06:47:11 UTC

against

Josh:

02-09-2007 09:30:48 UTC

for Counter-bandwagon