Sunday, May 17, 2009

Proposal: Rules are changing (constantly)

Timed out 7 votes to 9 (3 unresolved deferential). Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 19 May 2009 11:05:54 UTC

Create a new rule “Room Rules”:

There exists one sub-rule under this rule for each room of the Reality TV bunker, and each one is named after a single room. Those rules shall be known as Room Rules. Rule text contained within those rules applies only to the set of Insiders whose Location match that sub-rule’s name.

A Room Rule which does not apply to a Contestant may not change the gamestate of that Contestant; it may only change the gamestate of Contestants it applies to. Actions defined in a Room Rule that does not apply to a Contestant cannot be taken by that Contestant.

No Room Rule can modify the ruleset directly or indirectly. No Room Rule applies to the Host.

Optional activity: If you vote FOR, include the name of a Room and my next proposal will create rules for that room.

Comments

Influenza:

05-17-2009 08:54:14 UTC

for Kitchen. This seems interesting, I think I understand the paragraph about what’s applicable to whom… ;o

Oze:

05-17-2009 09:14:22 UTC

for

Devenger:

05-17-2009 09:58:52 UTC

for Bathroom, obv.

Kevan:

05-17-2009 11:38:18 UTC

against It’d be good to have room-relevant rules grouped into a single section, but I don’t think we need the constraint of “can’t affect people in other rooms”, which seems like it could cut out a lot of fun mechanics (running the taps in the kitchen to upset people in the bathroom, having a loud party in the lounge to wake up people trying to sleep in the bedroom, etc).

The Room Rules are going to be put through the proposal system anyway, so any unfair exploits will be caught at that point.

Qwazukee:

05-17-2009 11:58:59 UTC

imperial Reminds me of the separate Blo-Gno-Mic rules.

delta:

05-17-2009 12:19:34 UTC

imperial

Yoda:

05-17-2009 13:59:01 UTC

against Kevan: One would hope anyways…

Kevan:

05-17-2009 14:09:37 UTC

If this is building up to letting players add Room Rules outside of the normal proposal system, a mere “No Room Rule can modify the ruleset directly or indirectly” isn’t going to put up any resistance to a serious scam.

arthexis:

05-17-2009 16:15:05 UTC

@Kevan: I am not planning on proposing anything like that (I’ve already done that before with hilarious consequences).

arthexis:

05-17-2009 16:17:41 UTC

Also, forgot one another thing: Taking an action specified in the room can indeed change the gamestate of Candidates not in that room, as long as another room triggers on the gamestate change.

For example, if there is a Kitchen action of “running the taps” there can be a Bathroom rule that says, “When the taps are run do something”

Klisz:

05-17-2009 16:25:20 UTC

against  bedroom.

smith:

05-17-2009 16:55:27 UTC

@Kevan how can a scam circumvent “No Room Rule can modify the ruleset directly or indirectly”? That seems like a very tight restriction and a solid foundation for a CfJ against any attempted run-around.

smith:

05-17-2009 16:56:47 UTC

(against ruleset modification anyway - obviously the gamestate is wide open)

firefaux:

05-17-2009 18:19:59 UTC

imperial

Influenza:

05-17-2009 18:47:57 UTC

against CoV

Darknight:

05-17-2009 21:59:19 UTC

against

Psychotipath:

05-18-2009 09:36:45 UTC

for Kitchen
@ Darth you voted against and proposed a room?

Weird.

SingularByte:

05-18-2009 09:39:59 UTC

against

Kevan:

05-18-2009 10:30:26 UTC

[Smith] Something like “this is not counted as a Room Rule for the purposes of the rest of the ruleset”, at the end of your room rule. Anything that lets players create legally-binding sentences is a minefield.

Ienpw III:

05-18-2009 13:20:03 UTC

for Gym. Maybe something to do with a Fitness statistic?

Quazie:

05-18-2009 14:06:34 UTC

imperial

tuxhedoh:

05-18-2009 19:05:34 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

05-18-2009 20:12:31 UTC

CoV imperial =>  against

This is failing 6-7-3. Another one where ais can swing the outcome by voting.

ais523:

05-18-2009 20:33:20 UTC

I don’t like swinging the outcome, though. It’s not fair, giving me all this voting power!

I need to think about this one a bit more. People voting for/against, argue at me to try to make up my mind!

Kevan:

05-18-2009 22:15:18 UTC

I still don’t see what we gain by being restrictive, here. I think we’d be fine with just “Hey, let’s have some rules about rooms, make them as subrules to this one.” - we’re just going to trip over and have null or broken rules in the ruleset, when someone accidentally adds a mechanic that would affect someone outside of the room that initiated it.

The Location restriction would also prevent any room rules from having any ongoing effects on people (as the player could negate it simply by leaving the room).

Bucky:

05-18-2009 22:53:59 UTC

against .  We could just do this as subrules of the Locations rule.

smith:

05-18-2009 23:08:02 UTC

for Kevan, thanks for the example, but I still think that would be modifying the ruleset, specifically the line in this proposed rule: “Those rules shall be known as Room Rules”, indirectly (it makes itself an exception to that classification, thereby modifying the rule).

delta:

05-19-2009 10:49:32 UTC

CoV:  against  Kevan persuaded me. And I also like the idea of affecting other rooms.