Monday, May 18, 2009

Proposal: I can’t get no satisfaction…

Vetoed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 18 May 2009 19:55:28 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule entitled Satisfaction:

Every Contestant has a statistic in the GNDT called “Satisfaction”. A Contestant’s Satisfaction can be any integer between 1 and 100, inclusive. A Contestant may not perform any actions that have a Required Satisfaction greater than said Contestant’s Satisfaction. All Contestants’ Satisfaction starts at 50.

There exist special actions called Actions, which are recorded on the wiki page entitled Actions. Any Contestant may propose a new action by creating a new post under the proposal category stating that they are performing a particular Action, and providing details, if necessary. Action proposals are added to the wiki page if they receive a quorum of votes, or if the Host votes FOR the Action. Proposed Actions follow the following format:

Name: (The Action’s name.)
Required Satisfaction: (The Satisfaction required to perform this Action.)
Frequency: (How frequently this Action may be performed.)
Effect: (The effect of this Action.)

An Action may not be performed by a single Contestant more frequently than the number of days specified by the Action’s Frequency. No more than three Contestants may perform the same Action in a single day. A Contestant may not perform more than three Actions in a single day.

Creates framework for actions. These Actions are different from the Reward actions, as these are intended to be more mundane/common tasks (eg. eating, using the bathroom, sleeping).

Comments

Psychotipath:

05-18-2009 14:01:59 UTC

So some thing like:

Name: make and eat a meal
Required Satisfaction: 10
Frequency: 3 times a day
Effect: your satisfaction increases by 5.

Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 14:05:45 UTC

Yes, and then to perform that action, I would make a post like the following:

Yuri’s meal.
I am performing the Action “make and eat a meal”

Then I’d change my Satisfaction statistic.

Psychotipath:

05-18-2009 14:07:37 UTC

Ok for  for

TAE:

05-18-2009 14:23:41 UTC

I hate to be that guy, but I read “Action proposals are added to the wiki page if they receive a quorum of votes” to mean that it does not matter whether the votes the action recieves are FOR or AGAINST.  Was that the intent?  I am not sure that is a reason to not pass this proposal, since all people need to do is not vote at all on actions they don’t like. I just thought I should ask.

Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 14:33:26 UTC

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I`ll create a new proposal saying that if this one gets passed, it will change it to say “Action proposals are added to the wiki page if they receive a quorum of votes supporting the proposal”.

Kevan:

05-18-2009 14:45:05 UTC

Nice idea. Would be simpler just to leave the added-if-quorum out, I think - players can always add new Actions using normal proposals, and it’s potentially confusing to have “fake” proposals that can pass ahead of other ones. (Normally proposals get processed in sequence from oldest to newest.)

It might also be simpler just to have the Actions as a subrule in the main ruleset, to save people from having to check two different web pages when deciding what to do.

And satisfaction sounds kind of similar to the “Comfort” statistic put forward in this proposal; it’s not clear if it’ll pass or not, but if it does, we don’t need two similar stats.

Psychotipath:

05-18-2009 14:49:47 UTC

If that happens this one can always be veto

Kevan:

05-18-2009 14:53:25 UTC

“Any Contestant may propose a new action by creating a new post under the proposal category stating that they are performing a particular Action” also seems a little dodgy - does “stating they are performing it” mean that they actually get to perform it, before it’s been voted on?

against

Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 14:55:44 UTC

I hear you, Kevan. My reasoning for putting it in the proposals category in the first place was there was no other category to place this in. Do you think I should just kill this proposal and rewrite?

Bucky:

05-18-2009 14:57:20 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

05-18-2009 15:03:54 UTC

CoV,  against  because I realized the proposals-per-day limit applies.

Psychotipath:

05-18-2009 15:07:50 UTC

huh? oh yeah.

Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 15:09:39 UTC

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Rewrite coming.
against

ais523:

05-18-2009 15:52:00 UTC

veto This gives me a trivial dictatorship over all of BlogNomic. Please, don’t let Action Proposals have an effect on the ruleset as well as being an action proposal (this doesn’t seem to have been blocked here); or I can get a friend to propose one like that, vote for it, and it will get enacted as well as being added to the wiki.

Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 15:59:17 UTC

Well, that was kind of the point, seeing how you’re the host, but maybe it’s too much power. I don’t know, does anyone want to help me out with this proposal?

ais523:

05-18-2009 17:24:56 UTC

In general, loopholes that allow anyone to gain absolute control of a nomic are frowned on. In BlogNomic, more so than in other nomics.

arthexis:

05-18-2009 18:43:55 UTC

against