Monday, August 02, 2010

Proposal: Going Underground

Procedurally Vetoed. - lilomar

Adminned at 03 Aug 2010 01:23:12 UTC

Create a new Ruleset, The Anti-Dynastic Ruleset. Create a new Rule in the Anti-Dynastic Ruleset, “This Rule Does Not Exist,” with the following text:

For the purpose of the Core Rules, the Anti-Dynastic Ruleset is part of the Dynastic Rules. For the purpose of the Dynastic Rules, the Anti-Dynastic Ruleset DOES NOT EXIST.

Create a new Rule in the Anti-Dynastic Ruleset titled “Going Underground” with the following text:

At any time, a Citizen may choose to “Run and Hide.” The Citizen does this by posting a Story Post with the word “Goodbye” in its title; afterwards, this Citizen is said to be “On the Lam.” A Citizen who chooses to Run and Hide automatically has their Home-Sector changed to “ZZZ.” A Citizen who is On the Lam cannot be accused of belonging to a group, as everyone already knows how treacherous such a Citizen is. A Citizen who is On the Lam cannot be Terminated by a Citizen unless that Citizen is in the same Sector as the Citizen On the Lam.

I had to create a new Ruleset, or this would be subject to the Clearance Level Rules which wouldn’t make any sense. It’s time for Citizens to have a little wiggle room to maneuver… and much as you might be loathe to admit it, all of you fellow Citizens know you need it as well to complete your own secret agendas. It is time to RISE and defeat the CORRUPTED COMPUTER!

Comments

lilomar:

08-02-2010 13:22:05 UTC

I’m not sure changing your home-sector makes much sense, as it represents where you are from, not where you are at.

Kevan:

08-02-2010 13:23:22 UTC

against You’re saying that Termination and Accusations mechanics are overridden by a rule which doesn’t exist from the perspective of the Termination and Accusation rules?

You could have just created a new section and specified that it has no clearance.

Qwazukee:

08-02-2010 13:25:59 UTC

The ruleset currently doesn’t really say much about Sectors, other than that you have to be in one on a certain date somehow. Also, who knows the origins of Citizens on the lam? What Sector would want to subscribe to owning them? Only the Sector of Thieves and Brigands, ZZZ.

Qwazukee:

08-02-2010 13:30:57 UTC

Hmm you may be right Kevan, I’m imagining that Citizens might be considered killed by the regular Ruleset no matter what the Anti-Dynastic Ruleset says. *sigh* I think I’ll have to repropose as a Colorless rule later.

lilomar:

08-02-2010 13:37:03 UTC

against per Kevan and considering a Veto, not for flavor reasons, but because having two rulesets, one of which didn’t exist in regards to the other, would lead to many issues like the ones pointed out.

lilomar:

08-02-2010 13:37:48 UTC

(plus there would be no provision for the next High-Programmer to repeal the Anti-Dynastic ruleset.)

Qwazukee:

08-02-2010 13:50:05 UTC

It could still be repealed, the Core Rules consider it to be part of the Dynastic Rules. I’ll probably self-kill this eventually, but I want to see if there are any actual problems with the contents of the rules themselves before a repropose as a Dynastic Rule

lilomar:

08-02-2010 13:56:26 UTC

Ah, yes, reading fail on my part.

scshunt:

08-02-2010 14:08:11 UTC

against

flurie:

08-02-2010 16:14:52 UTC

against This is a little more complicated than I care for, honestly.

ais523:

08-02-2010 17:05:09 UTC

against None of the rules say that the Anti-Dynastic Ruleset is binding. (Note that the core rules and the dynastic rules are in the same ruleset.) We’d have a ruleset which was no more binding than the Secret Ruleset or the ruleset Ienpw III once posted on his user page as a result of this.

Purplebeard:

08-02-2010 17:17:22 UTC

against

Bucky:

08-02-2010 18:33:05 UTC

against .  I remember what happened last time we had more than one ruleset, and it wasn’t pretty.

Darknight:

08-02-2010 18:44:52 UTC

against

Hix:

08-02-2010 20:57:52 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

08-03-2010 00:04:38 UTC

against s/k

lilomar:

08-03-2010 01:22:53 UTC

procedural veto