Monday, August 02, 2010

Proposal: Chapter and Perverse

Procedurally Vetoed. - lilomar

Adminned at 04 Aug 2010 08:22:55 UTC

Create a new RED rule entitled “Popsy Pervy” with the following text:

At any time, a Citizen may spend Perversity Points in order to undertake any action enumerated in the subrules to this rule. Each subrule must list the cost of the action and the action’s effect. The Citizen must have Perversity Points equal to or greater than the cost of an action in order to be able to spend them on that action. Once the Citizen has subtracted the cost of the action from their Perversity Points, they may perform the action.

Create a subrule to the rule “Popsy Pervy” entitled “Influence through the outfluence door” with the following text:

Cost: 1 Perversity Point. Action: Increase or decrease the Treason Points of any Citizen by 1.

Create a subrule to the rule “Popsy Pervy” entitled “Professional killing is a growth industry” with the following text:

Cost: 1 + the absolute value of the numeric difference in clearance levels between the Citizen and the victim. Action: The Citizen may terminate another Citizen (referred to in this rule as the victim) as long as the victim’s Treason Points are greater than or equal to 6.

Create a subrule to the rule “Popsy Pervy” entitled “Hook and ladder” with the following text:

Cost: 2 + the numeric value of the resulting clearance (with INFARED being 0, RED being 1, etc.) Action: Raise or lower the clearance of a Citizen by one level, restore the number of Treason points the Citizen had prior to the clearance level change, and then add an additional Treason point for the Citizen’s inappropriate cutting of red tape.

Then change the clearance of the rule “Popsy Pervy” and all its subrules to INDIGO.

 

Comments

Kevan:

08-02-2010 16:44:04 UTC

for

I’m calling this as TREASON because it creates an INDIGO rule where there was no such a rule before (Ais-R-BGN-1’s workaround merely promoted an INFRARED rule). Whether you enact an INDIGO rule, or enact a RED rule and change it to INDIGO, you are creating an INDIGO rule.

flurie:

08-02-2010 17:07:54 UTC

Kevan, at no time is an INDIGO rule created. A RED rule is created (“Create a new RED rule…”). Its clearance is then changed. The fact that a new INDIGO rule exists at the end of the proposal is moot.

Purplebeard:

08-02-2010 17:26:02 UTC

against This sentence is far too dangerous:

“Once the Citizen has subtracted the cost of the action from their Perversity Points, they may perform the action.”

It doesn’t specify how often the action may be performed. A safer wording would be “Any Citizen may spend X to do Y”.

Also, if perversity points are going to be this powerful, we probably need another way of getting them besides arrowing proposals.

ais523:

08-02-2010 17:39:24 UTC

against per Purplebeard (the text seems to imply that after spending once, you can perform the action infinite times).

Bucky:

08-02-2010 18:37:07 UTC

against

ais523:

08-02-2010 18:49:11 UTC

What I think is the only reasonable argument in favour of AGAINST, from IRC:

[19:47] <ais523> OK, the reasonable argument in favour of flurie’s post being treason is that flurie’s post has the overall effect of creating a high-clearance rule
[19:47] <ais523> even though no action in the proposal does so individually
[19:48] <ais523> if “authoring a proposal increasing a player’s clearance by 2 stages” was treason, then two proposals increasing it by one stage clearly wouldn’t be treason
[19:48] <ais523> one proposal increasing it by one stage twice? less clear

I’m not sure if this is strong enough to actually call flurie’s proposal treason.

Darknight:

08-02-2010 18:49:18 UTC

against

ais523:

08-02-2010 18:57:22 UTC

I posted that on the wrong post (it was meant to be on the CFJ).

flurie:

08-02-2010 19:42:15 UTC

against s/k pending a fix.

lilomar:

08-03-2010 01:23:49 UTC

procedural veto