Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Proposal: Settlement House Ethos

Self-killed, failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 20 May 2009 15:09:36 UTC

Create a new subrule under “The Bunker” titled “Settlement House Ethos,” with the following text:

A Contestant in the kitchen may, as a weekly action but subject to the limitations in this rule, attempt to cook. The Contestant making the attempt must make a post to the main page titled “{Name} is Cooking for the {Room}” where {Name} is the Character’s Name and {Room} is a Room in the bunker other than the Kitchen. The body of the post should describe the dish being cooked.  That Character must then roll DICEX where X is the number of Characters in the Kitchen (including the Character who is cooking) plus the number of Characters in the named {Room}; this is the “result”. If the result exceeds X/2 rounded up, the cooking was successful, otherwise it was unsuccessful. If the cooking was successful, the Character who did the cooking may change the Support value of a number of Characters equal to the result who are in the Kitchen or the named Room to his name. If the cooking was unsuccessful nothing happens.

A Character may not cook if someone else has successfully cooked in the previous 24 hours or if that Character was the last Character to attempt to cook.

If a majority of the votes in favor of this proposal include the phrase “This is real life, people” add the following after the first paragraph of the new subrule:

Any attempt to cook renders the dishes dirty and they remain dirty until a Character cleans them. In order to clean the dishes a Character must be in the Kitchen. The Character doing the cleaning must add a comment to the original cooking post stating that he is “doing the dishes.” That Character must then remain in the Kitchen for 24 hours at which point he must post a comment to the cooking post stating that the “dishes are done.” If the Character who is doing the dishes leaves the Kitchen for any reason before the end of that 24 hour period, he must post a comment to the cooking post stating that the “dishes remain dirty.” Any attempt to do the dishes requires a full 24 hours, regardless of any prior failed attempts.

Also, if a majority of the votes in favor of this proposal include the phrase “This is real life, people” change the final sentence of the new subrule to read:

A person may not cook if: someone else has successfully cooked in the previous 24 hours, the dishes are dirty, or if that person was the last person to attempt to cook

For those not familiar, the original title of the Settlement House Cookbook was “The Way to A Man’s Heart.”

EDIT: Added the sentehce “The body of the post should describe the dish being cooked.”  Sorry

Comments

TAE:

05-19-2009 14:48:46 UTC

for Explicit author for to add may belief that This is real life, people. 

Also, it looks like I got the edit in before anyone else commented so hopefully it isn’t a problem for anyone.  Sorry about that.

ais523:

05-19-2009 16:35:40 UTC

Editing before comments is legal, editing after comments isn’t.

Also, is it deliberate that there’s about a 1 in 2 chance it works no matter how many people are in the rooms in question? I think you probably don’t want the value needed to depend on X, but I’m not sure what you do want.

Darknight:

05-19-2009 16:51:04 UTC

imperial This is real life, people.

TAE:

05-19-2009 16:51:26 UTC

I hadn’t thought of that as a problem.  In real life it is probably easier to cook for four people than for two; it is certainly not twice as hard.  In addition, I did want there to be degrees of success, tied to the number of people influenced.  If people really don’t like this measure of success I would consider tweaking it, but what would you rather see?  I could keep the die role scaled to the group size but make the result need to exceed a fixed number, but then there would be the possibility of a guaranteed success, which I don’t think makes sense.  I considered adding a new attribute to measure how likely a person is to cook successfully, but that seemed too ambitious for a single proposal.

Klisz:

05-19-2009 16:59:49 UTC

for

Klisz:

05-19-2009 17:01:49 UTC

CoV for This is real life, people

Klisz:

05-19-2009 17:04:57 UTC

And I assume by Character you mean Contestant.

Kevan:

05-19-2009 17:17:38 UTC

for

Bucky:

05-19-2009 19:13:39 UTC

against on 4 counts:
1)It doesn’t make provisions for changing someone’s Support to the same value as their Vote (which is illegal). 
2)you should never be able to change your own Support by cooking for yourself. 
3)It looks like it’s too powerful, but that isn’t clear yet.
4)I am categorically opposed to votes-with-text proposals that exclude the text votes of players who voted AGAINST.

Ienpw III:

05-19-2009 19:27:40 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

05-19-2009 19:28:57 UTC

CoV:  for This is real life, people.

TAE:

05-19-2009 19:48:47 UTC

Bucky:
1)You are right on this, although I don’t see that as a fatal problem with the proposal - it seems like a patch would be approrpriate
2) If your concern is that cooking should not change your support to yourself, unless your result was equal to X you could avioid that outcome.  It is also not clear that the majority of players believe that you shouldn’t be able to support yourself if you want to.
3) How can you tell?  I can’t consider fixing this unless I know what your concern is.
4) If this is a dealbreaker for you, regardless of the merits of the proposal, there is not much I can do about it now. 

That being said, I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration if I have to re-propose.

Kevan:

05-19-2009 20:09:46 UTC

Not sure why (1) and (2) are a problem, Bucky; surely we already have “A Contestant can change their own Vote as a daily action.” and “A Contestant can never have the same Vote and Support statistic.” taking obvious precedence over each other? The latter would also take precedence here.

I’m categorically opposed to votes-with-text proposals (for giving the illusion of a second, free proposal, when actually it’s a slim “if half of quorum approve, make this change to the ruleset”), but will let this one slide.

Ienpw III:

05-20-2009 01:44:28 UTC

How exactly does one roll DICEX anyway?
Sorry, I’m still new and don’t know much about the workings of the system…

Qwazukee:

05-20-2009 02:32:10 UTC

against Just because I had enough of food in arth’s Dynasty.

Qwazukee:

05-20-2009 02:33:41 UTC

Yuri: Type “DICEX,” where “X” is replaced by the number of the DICE.

That is, to roll a 9-sided Dice, typr DICE9 into the GNDT in the comment field, and submit.

Ienpw III:

05-20-2009 02:36:44 UTC

Ok, thanks

smith:

05-20-2009 03:27:24 UTC

against I’d prefer a way to gamble for support where there was some risk involved. This mechanic fosters a rush on the kitchen.

Yoda:

05-20-2009 05:04:17 UTC

against That is the power that Bucky was talking about.  Because there is nothing to lose, there is no reason not to rush to the kitchen to cook.  Also, the scaling needs tweaking.

How about if the result is greater than or equal to the number of contestants in the chosen room, the support of all contestants in that room is set to the cook; however, if not, the vote of all contestants in that room is set to the cook.

Yoda:

05-20-2009 05:06:33 UTC

And the add-on doesn’t sound right either.  I don’t think it says anywhere at what point the dishes become clean, and “change the final sentence of the new subrule” would change the last sentence of the paragraph just added, thus removing “Any attempt to do the dishes requires a full 24 hours, regardless of any prior failed attempts.” from the rule entirely.

ais523:

05-20-2009 12:21:45 UTC

against Make it an interesting decision whether to cook or not.

TAE:

05-20-2009 14:27:19 UTC

against CoV to S/K. Lets see if I can do this in a way that makes more people happy.

ais523:

05-20-2009 15:09:10 UTC

veto Have your slot back.