Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Proposal: Blue Sky Printing

Reaches quorum at 15-3. Might also have timed out. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 04 Mar 2010 10:06:04 UTC

To Rule 2.2 (Inventions), add:-

If the only effect of a Proposal is to add a single Part to the Ruleset, or to amend a single Part, and if its title includes the word “Blueprint”, it is known as a Blueprint Proposal. A Commoner’s oldest pending Blueprint Proposal is not counted as a Proposal for the clause of “unless the Commoner already has 2 Proposals pending” in Rule 1.3.

Comments

lordcooper:

03-02-2010 11:04:34 UTC

for

Josh:

03-02-2010 11:13:46 UTC

for

ais523:

03-02-2010 11:43:58 UTC

for

digibomber:

03-02-2010 12:14:44 UTC

against

Roujo:

03-02-2010 15:09:02 UTC

for

Klisz:

03-02-2010 15:17:37 UTC

imperial

Ienpw III:

03-02-2010 16:16:25 UTC

for

Hix:

03-02-2010 16:18:26 UTC

imperial Note that this wording has the same issue that Crises did.  If you have 2 non-Blueprint Pending Proposals, you still won’t be allowed to make a Blueprint Proposal, because no Rule allows you to do so.

Keba:

03-02-2010 19:08:41 UTC

against there are over ten proposals pending all the time…. Thats enough.

Also, as i stated somewhere else, I dont want to have that much inventions (or parts) at this early time…

I would vote for such a Proposal in ~ two weeks.

Put:

03-02-2010 19:12:27 UTC

imperial

Kevan:

03-02-2010 19:20:26 UTC

[Keba] This is intended to allow a background trickle of new Parts, without forcing players to give up slots they’d otherwise use for fixes or larger game mechanics. If you don’t think the dynasty needs many more Parts, though, fair enough.

Keba:

03-02-2010 20:12:05 UTC

Well, ive thought about this again.

At first, there is no need for “one part per proposal”, as most part-proposals pass. Is there any one-part-propsal, which failed or is going to fail?

Also, I would like to have other mechanics than scavenging and inventing all the time. Aix proposed yesterday an idea in IRC, which allows raiding instead of scavenging. Such methods would be much nicer, I think.

PS: I hope I am allowed to write in this comment information about IRC discussions?

Darknight:

03-02-2010 22:13:19 UTC

for @Keba: Bringing up IRC stuff is fine. If it wasn’t we prob wouldn’t have the IRC to begin with

dbdougla:

03-03-2010 00:35:00 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

03-03-2010 10:09:13 UTC

for

tecslicer:

03-03-2010 18:49:41 UTC

for

yabbaguy:

03-03-2010 22:41:33 UTC

against-I’d hate to see 10+ blueprints from everyone proposing one thing.

At minimum, scrap the part of “adding one *part*” to the ruleset. We’re practically begging for that to be abused since “Part” isn’t defined IIRC.

yabbaguy:

03-03-2010 23:00:28 UTC

Wait, I’m dumb. Part as in an invention part- not “part of the ruleset”. Vote stands though.

Qwazukee:

03-04-2010 04:38:23 UTC

imperial Pending clarification on “Part.”

Bucky:

03-04-2010 05:20:08 UTC

imperial

Kevan:

03-04-2010 08:49:28 UTC

“Part” is clearly defined by the ruleset.