Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Proposal: I can’t work like this! It’s unprofessional!

Quorum reached. Fails 1-15.

Adminned at 07 Feb 2007 21:45:50 UTC

Add a new rule, entitled “Being a Diva”.

All Actors have certain pet hates in their co-stars. An Actor may never have the same film listed in eir filmography as another actor who has their pet peeve as a Gossip Story. If an Actor gains a Gossip Story after appearing in a film with an Actor to whom that story is a pet peeve, then the film must be withdraw from the the actor with the Pet Peeve (i.e. it must be removed from their filmography); this does not have any retroactive effect on the legality activities already undertaken, but the actor must replace the role that e undertook on the film e withdrew from before e may add any new roles to eir list.

Actors mutually excluded from films in this manner are considered to be ‘Enemies’ or ‘Rivals’, and my occasionally trash-talk about each other by posting to the gamestate.

New or un-idled Actors must immediately chose a Pet Peeve upon joining the game, and may not undertake any other game actions until they have done so. Pet Peeves are tracked in the GNDT and may never be changed unless the rulestate specifically permits it elsewhere.

Upon the passage of this proposal, all Actors should chose a pet peeve from the list of available Gossip Stories before undertaking any further game actions. Actors who have no Pet Peeve after 48 hours from the passage of this proposal may have eir Pet Peeve selected at random by any other Actor.

If the Proposal titled “Proposal: Betty Ford, Here I Come” passed, add the following to the rule:

If an Actor ever has eir own Pet Peeve as a Gossip Story, then they immediately have eir Rehab set to “XXX” and becomes Washed Up.

If e then loses that Gossip Story, then e may remove all Xs from eir Rehab column and gains “Making a Comeback” as a Gossip Story instead.

And add the following to the end of the list of Gossip Stories:

* Making a Comeback

While an Actor has “Making a Comeback” as a Gossip Story, they cannot be admitted to Rehab.

Comments

spikebrennan:

02-06-2007 16:13:42 UTC

against even though I generally like the concept.  I am a little concerned about the logistics of adoption (everyone must pick their Peeve within 48 hours of adoption or else have it selected randomly, new Actors can’t do anything until they pick their Peeve).  I’m concerned that this will be a disorderly fire drill when it is adopted.  I would suggest, rather, that upon Adoption (or upon a new Actor joining), roll a Peeve randomly (1DICEx where X is the number of valid Peeves, etc.)

Josh:

02-06-2007 16:19:53 UTC

48 hours isn’t onerous, though, and having your peeve randomly selected by another player is no worse than having it selected by an RNG. I agree, though, to an extent; but I didn’t want to make it a random process because I rather like the idea of people internalising their peeves and enmities.

The new player thing may be a bit hard, I suppose.

peacefulwarrior:

02-06-2007 16:22:56 UTC

against I, too, favor random peeving.  I think that would make it more fun.

Also, please note that if an Actor gets Washed Up, e can’t win the game after that.  That is, as my Betty Ford proposal stands, three Xs and e is out.  Maybe I could suggest that if Peeve=Gossip, then Rehab gets increased by one X, instead of automatically adding three.

Edometheus:

02-06-2007 16:33:14 UTC

against

Hix:

02-06-2007 16:43:46 UTC

against

Also, what is meant by “but the actor must replace the role that e undertook on the film e withdrew from before e may add any new roles to eir list.”

Josh:

02-06-2007 16:48:22 UTC

Under the Filmography rule, an actor has to have been an Extra three times before e can be an Nth Minor, and a Nth Minor three times before e can be a named role. That clause was just to establish that, if an Actor loses an Extra credit, e has to replace it before e can carry on accruing names role credits.

Kevan:

02-06-2007 16:58:32 UTC

against A nice idea, and great in theme, but the assignation needs to be sorted out. Just say that actors can’t take on a film if they don’t have a defined peeve, or something.

snowballinhell7001:

02-06-2007 17:05:46 UTC

Good idea, keep working and repropose.  against

viewtyjoe:

02-06-2007 18:06:10 UTC

against

Cosmologicon:

02-06-2007 18:38:40 UTC

against Agree with Kevan’s suggestion.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-06-2007 19:25:05 UTC

against A Proposal has only effect at the time of its enactment, unless it creates a rule.

Upon the passage of this proposal, all Actors should chose a pet peeve from the list of available Gossip Stories before undertaking any further game actions. Actors who have no Pet Peeve after 48 hours from the passage of this proposal may have eir Pet Peeve selected at random by any other Actor.

The text above has no practical effect…

Josh:

02-06-2007 22:13:23 UTC

I don’t think I agree, Chronos. The rulestate says that <i>“Any Actor may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate”, which strongly implies that the gamestate can be changed without a rule needing to be passed.

ChinDoGu:

02-06-2007 22:13:27 UTC

against I don’t like the concept of retoractivly removing movies from the past.

Hix:

02-06-2007 22:13:45 UTC

Agreed that the first sentence you quoted doesn’t grant the ability to do anything (use of “should”), but the second does.  It’s sloppy not putting it in the ruleset, but allowed.

Josh:

02-06-2007 22:15:37 UTC

Chin, I guess I was interpreting the chronology of this dynasty non-literally; as in, all of these films are currently “in production”, regardless of their real-world status, and can be withdrawn from at any time.

alethiophile:

02-06-2007 22:23:38 UTC

for Just to avoid jumping on the bandwagon.

Doremi:

02-06-2007 23:05:50 UTC

The whole new actor clause is problematic. It should read something like “If an actor without a pet peeve adds a film to the filmography wiki, e is assigned a random pet peeve.

Elias IX:

02-07-2007 00:03:38 UTC

against

Doodle:

02-07-2007 00:44:51 UTC

against

alethiophile:

02-07-2007 01:58:25 UTC

CoV per Doremi.  against

snowballinhell7001:

02-07-2007 02:41:08 UTC

0-13, need one vote for quorum <cough>Doremi</cough>.

Excalabur:

02-07-2007 03:56:11 UTC

Doesn’t matter, it’s not at the top of the queueueue :)

against

Elias IX:

02-07-2007 21:27:35 UTC

against