Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Proposal: Meteor Shower

Vetoed (repropose suggested). -Bucky

Adminned at 20 Dec 2014 20:27:40 UTC

“Unidentified Material” is a Substance with no Market Value on any Moon.

Add one container with storage “2 Unidentified Material” to Orbit E8.

A major meteor shower has struck Callisto, taking all communications offline between Shuttles and the Traffic Warden. As the Traffic Warden struggles to get everything back under control and restore the data that has been lost in the shower, a strange substance completely escapes his notice. It drifts away from Callisto and settles in orbit around Europa…

posted by Sylphrena at 17 Dec 2014 14:11:00 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Kevan: he/him

17-12-2014 14:42:31 UTC

for

Bucky:

17-12-2014 15:44:45 UTC

for

ayesdeeef:

18-12-2014 01:37:15 UTC

for

ayesdeeef:

18-12-2014 23:58:03 UTC

Is the “taking all communications offline” in the flavor text a reference to the three day gap that occurred in play?

Sprucial:

19-12-2014 00:33:51 UTC

for

BellEt:

19-12-2014 04:01:12 UTC

for

Sylphrena:

19-12-2014 13:14:06 UTC

Yeah, this was made to create in-game consequences for the real-life downtime.

ayesdeeef:

19-12-2014 19:29:59 UTC

sweet I like it

Kevan: he/him

19-12-2014 20:54:44 UTC

Actually, I don’t think this is going to have any effect when it enacts, because the opening line (”“Unidentified Material” is a Substance with no Market Value on any Moon.”) doesn’t do anything. If you want a statement to affect the game in an ongoing manner, it has to be a rule. (From the glossary, “Once a proposal has been enacted, it can have no further direct effect on the gamestate.”)

Since a Container “has an Attribute, Storage, that is an amount of Fuel or a Substance”, and “Unidentified Material” is not defined anywhere as being a Substance, the Container cannot exist.

Sylphrena:

20-12-2014 02:29:34 UTC

The opening line was meant to explain my interpretation of the ruleset (which I put into a CfJ) and not actually intended to have any real effect.

That said, it occurs to me that assuming that my interpretation of the rules is the right one is probably a bad assumption (hence the CfJ).

Bucky:

20-12-2014 05:18:43 UTC

There’s already a CfJ about whether this works, and it isn’t even enacted yet.  veto  and suggest a repropose.