Sunday, May 17, 2009

Proposal: He was quiet - kind of a loner

Adminned at 18 May 2009 19:22:09 UTC

To the end of the ‘Social Structure’ Rule, add the following text, which defines two new Contestant keywords:

A Contestant who supports themselves is an Independent, unless they are supported by no other Contestant, in which case they are a Loner.

Vetoed -Bucky

Comments

Influenza:

05-17-2009 16:41:56 UTC

imperial I like the new jargon, but I’m not sure of the implications of the word ‘Loner’ ... :p

Rodlen:

05-17-2009 16:48:45 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

05-17-2009 17:34:30 UTC

against .  Contestents were never intended to support themselves.  This is implied but not enforced by the current wording of the rule.

arthexis:

05-17-2009 18:15:16 UTC

against

firefaux:

05-17-2009 18:23:56 UTC

imperial

Klisz:

05-17-2009 19:16:00 UTC

imperial

Darknight:

05-17-2009 22:00:24 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

05-17-2009 23:02:36 UTC

imperial I see no problem with supporting oneself, I didn’t realize it was supposed to be disallowed?

Yoda:

05-17-2009 23:53:06 UTC

for But is the Contestant considered a Pair?

Bucky:

05-18-2009 03:06:27 UTC

@Qwazukee:
“The Support statistic represents the other Contestant whom that Contestant would most likely go to for advice”
@Yoda:
“Two Contestants who support each other are a Pair”

Qwazukee:

05-18-2009 03:33:45 UTC

Lol, that stuff is woefully undefined; we can pretty much ignore it. But I see how that was intended, now that you mention it.

Yoda:

05-18-2009 03:35:55 UTC

I actually kinda like the idea of being able to support yourself.

TAE:

05-18-2009 03:41:01 UTC

imperial I suspect Bucky is right that this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the current ruleset, but I would defer to the host since all it does is add to the complexity of the still irrelevant support terminology.

arthexis:

05-18-2009 04:07:56 UTC

I think one should be able to support oneself. I mean, I go to myself for advice all the time.

Psychotipath:

05-18-2009 09:17:59 UTC

for Hmm voted yes on both of these. Strange, I think I prefer this one.

SingularByte:

05-18-2009 09:41:52 UTC

imperial

Devenger:

05-18-2009 10:24:24 UTC

imperial indifference

Kevan:

05-18-2009 10:38:50 UTC

against

delta:

05-18-2009 12:10:18 UTC

imperial

Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 13:21:02 UTC

for

Quazie:

05-18-2009 14:06:47 UTC

for

Klisz:

05-18-2009 15:16:23 UTC

“There is a GNDT column called “Support” whose legal values are the names of all non-Host Contestants.”

Therefore, you can support yourself, it just causes a hole in the theme.

ais523:

05-18-2009 15:25:53 UTC

against

ais523:

05-18-2009 16:10:35 UTC

Antiquorumed, I think. It’s back of the queue anyway so a veto won’t make any difference.

ais523:

05-18-2009 16:10:55 UTC

Wait, no it isn’t.  veto

Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 16:23:54 UTC

So what happens now?

ais523:

05-18-2009 17:29:46 UTC

@yuri: It fails as soon as an admin notices and is removed from the queue.