Saturday, February 03, 2007

Proposal: Rise to Fame

Passses 19-0, enacted by Angry Grasshopper.

Adminned at 05 Feb 2007 14:52:20 UTC

Repeal the rule “Filmography”, if it exists.

Enact a new rule, “Filmographies”:-

Each actor has a Filmography, which is stored in a wiki page called “Filmographies”. This is a list of the films that each Actor has starred in, the year of that film, and the role that they played in it.

Any film listed in a Filmography must exist on IMDB [www.imdb.com] and a link should be provided.

A role specified for a film may be either:-

  • “Extra”
  • “Nth Minor Character” (where “N” is any number, and “Minor Character” is a generic role such as “Hoodlum” or “Fireman” - eg. “4th Zombie”)
  • A named role that appears in the IMDB credits of the film.

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if they have not already done so in the previous four days, with the following restrictions:-

  • A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
  • A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

(“Earlier films” are those with an earlier year than the film being added.)

If anyone Filmographies exist when this proposal is enacted, they are blanked.

Comments

Clucky:

02-03-2007 23:17:36 UTC

Do we want worry about time frames here? This isn’t the time traveling dynasty. It seems odd that my Filmography could contain roles from old movies. And that it could be out of order.

Kevan:

02-03-2007 23:23:08 UTC

I was reading Chindogu’s original proposal as suggesting a dynasty where actors would look back over their careers, claiming roles in a variety of old films, rather than ten different 2007 releases.

This does allow some weird chronology, that a Buster Keaton extra could go on to be a teen comedy romantic lead seventy years later, but maybe we can penalise that sort of nonsense later on, if we want to…

Josh:

02-03-2007 23:23:41 UTC

for I don’t think that worrying about chronology is strictly speaking necessary.

Kevan:

02-03-2007 23:25:59 UTC

No reason for the filmography to be “out of order”, though - there’s nothing saying which order films have to be listed in. And as this rule stands, you could claim to be an extra in films from 1950, 1945, 1974 and 1960, then claim to have been Third Cowboy in a 1967 film (but not in a 1957 film), which doesn’t seem a problem.

Clucky:

02-03-2007 23:27:57 UTC

Ok. I guess you are right. *waits for some Keven Baconing to crop up*  for

ChinDoGu:

02-03-2007 23:52:11 UTC

My only concern is that you can have people claiming the same role in the same film here.. Which could lead to all kinds of problems…

imperial

ChinDoGu:

02-04-2007 00:01:52 UTC

Kevan :—Yeah that was the intention.. we could claim our past careers.  I’m not sure if this works exactly how I was thinking, but its close enough…

Clucky:

02-04-2007 00:05:29 UTC

It will take a month for someone to claim a main role, Chin. Plus, what is wrong with two actors “claiming” to be the same guy?

ChinDoGu:

02-04-2007 00:14:13 UTC

I guess I just wanted more variety… mabey it will happen naturally. for

viewtyjoe:

02-04-2007 00:32:26 UTC

for
I’m thinking of ways to work with this to make it more interesting.

viewtyjoe:

02-04-2007 00:32:46 UTC

for
I’m thinking of ways to work with this to make it more interesting.

viewtyjoe:

02-04-2007 00:33:12 UTC

Pardon the double post there.

alethiophile:

02-04-2007 00:56:54 UTC

against I like ChinDoGu’s version.

Elias IX:

02-04-2007 01:08:08 UTC

for

Doremi:

02-04-2007 01:28:55 UTC

for I think this will lead to some interesting things

Angry Grasshopper:

02-04-2007 01:45:56 UTC

imperial

Ralff:

02-04-2007 02:03:21 UTC

for
I like this a bit more than ChinDoGu’s version, since that one doesn’t really have any rules on what roles you can be.

Excalabur:

02-04-2007 02:22:18 UTC

for

Rodney:

02-04-2007 03:42:41 UTC

for

snowballinhell7001:

02-04-2007 03:55:28 UTC

against

Doodle:

02-04-2007 04:25:40 UTC

for

peacefulwarrior:

02-04-2007 15:22:13 UTC

for

Tiberias:

02-04-2007 15:50:43 UTC

for

snowballinhell7001:

02-04-2007 17:27:49 UTC

This will just lead to a race for good spots in fimographies which will tip the balance towards less busy players. Still an against .

Hix:

02-04-2007 19:33:24 UTC

for

ChinDoGu:

02-04-2007 22:50:43 UTC

Define good spots snowball.  Currently, this has no effect, so what is good is as yet undefined.

ChronosPhaenon:

02-05-2007 01:26:36 UTC

for

snowballinhell7001:

02-05-2007 13:26:01 UTC

CoV: A conditional for until I see how this will effect the game.

alethiophile:

02-05-2007 17:10:08 UTC

CoV.  for

Edometheus:

02-05-2007 18:37:49 UTC

imperial

Doodle:

02-05-2007 22:32:43 UTC

imperial

Elias IX:

02-05-2007 22:42:46 UTC

19-0, if I didn’t count anyone’s vote twice.