Friday, October 01, 2010

Proposal: The tides of the time

At 2-9, cannot be enacted without changed votes, and is failed. Brendan

Adminned at 01 Oct 2010 14:50:58 UTC

This proposal fails, if the proposal “Red, White and Blue” is not enacted.

Create a rule called “Diplomatic Conundrum” with the exact wording:

Each Nation (America, Britain, France, Russia, East Germany and West Germany) has a diplomacy value (DV), which is a whole number ranging from -5 to 5. The default DV for each value is 0. As an weekly event for each nation the D-Ops throws a DICE2. If the value on the dice is 1 he substracts 2 points from the DV of the respective nation if the value is 2 he adds 2 points to the DV of the respective nation. Values smaller than -5 are set to -5 and values greater 5 are set to 5.  The DV values are secretly tracked by the D-Ops.

In Rule 2.2, replace “An Agent’s Allegiance, if they have one, can be either US, Soviet or Independent. If an Agent has a Codename but no Allegiance, D-Ops may assign them an Allegiance at random, and contact them privately to inform them of this fact.”

with:

An Agent’s Allegiance is determined by his nationality and the DV of his nation.  There are three different Allegiances which are each formed by two nations. Nations form Allegiances according to their DV. The two nations with the highest DV form one Allegiance, so do the two nations with the lowest DV. The remaining two nations form the third Allegiance. If nations have equal DV they belong to the Allegiances according to alphabetical order. The allegiances are announced each week by the D-Ops.

 

Comments

Brendan:

10-01-2010 15:33:22 UTC

What if more than two nations have the same DV?

Brendan:

10-01-2010 15:34:38 UTC

Ah, missed the “alphabetical order” clause, sorry. for

Klisz:

10-01-2010 15:36:38 UTC

for

Blacky:

10-01-2010 15:37:09 UTC

for Alphabetical order is not perfect, perhaps someone has a better idea. However it should work.

Brendan:

10-01-2010 15:37:25 UTC

against CoV because I don’t think the alphabetical order clause actually does anything.

Thane Q:

10-01-2010 15:55:24 UTC

against I really dislike the idea that the description does not reveal where an Agent’s allegiance is. I like the idea of allegiances being secret, not even known by those with same nationality description.

Josh:

10-01-2010 16:02:20 UTC

imperial Seems like quite a bit of work for the D-Ops. Also, Blacky, there’s no need for you to vote on your own prop - the author’s vote is automatically FOR.

Thane Q:

10-01-2010 16:05:02 UTC

Somehow I wrote a double-negative above. That is confusing… I meant one of the following:
- I really like the idea that the description does not reveal where an Agent’s allegiance is.
- I really dislike the idea that the description reveals where an Agent’s allegiance is.

Bucky:

10-01-2010 17:52:29 UTC

imperial

Purplebeard:

10-01-2010 18:02:07 UTC

imperial

Kevan:

10-01-2010 18:23:04 UTC

against Dithering on this one, but on balance I think I’m against it, for Thane Q’s reason - there’s more of an espionage feel to things if private allegiances have nothing to do with a character’s country of origin. Some nice mechanics here, though, particularly the shifting strengths of the nations.

Roujo:

10-01-2010 19:04:13 UTC

against I also think the nation’s relative strenght is nice, and that it can change, but being assigned a random allegiance because of my random description… I don’t like it that much.

Roujo:

10-01-2010 19:04:34 UTC

strength*
Sorry =P

lilomar:

10-01-2010 19:18:12 UTC

imperial

ais523:

10-01-2010 19:23:59 UTC

imperial

lilomar:

10-01-2010 19:41:52 UTC

Hm, what happens if “Red, White, and Blue” is not enacted, but this proposal has enough for votes to be enacted?

This proposal fails, if the proposal “Red, White and Blue” is not enacted.

So, admin starts to enact the proposal, and come to the quoted line. which means that they should fail the proposal, which means that they never come to the quoted line, which means that they enact the proposal…

It obviously couldn’t be enacted, since it’s own text specifies that it fails. So, if an Admin fails it, what should they put as the reason for failing? it wasn’t enacted, because it was failed, so the fact that it specifies that it should fail as part of it’s enactment is not valid.

I doubt it will come up, as RWnB is currently at 10-1, and this is at 2-9, but it is an interesting question, nonetheless.

(Blacky: the usual wording is “If [condition], this proposal does nothing.” Which means that the proposal is enacted, it just has no effect.)

Brendan:

10-01-2010 19:49:07 UTC

Actually, I’m not sure “this proposal fails” is equivalent to “this proposal is failed.”  The Ruleset uses the passive form of the verb exclusively, from what I can see.  “Fails” might be just non-rule-affecting color text (like “this proposal is wonderful” or “this proposal grinds its teeth”).  Under that interpretation, the rule “Diplomatic Conundrum” would be created, but the search-replace part of the proposal would legally do nothing.

Klisz:

10-01-2010 20:07:52 UTC

I think it would pass, then fail itself. It wouldn’t fail itself retroactively, so it wouldn’t create a temporal paradox.

Roujo:

10-01-2010 20:49:45 UTC

Retroaction does tend to mess with space-time.

And many nomic’s player’s minds. =P

Klisz:

10-01-2010 20:58:38 UTC

One of Fresh Nomic’s temporary deaths was caused by Ienpw III (who is also a Fresh Nomic player) getting a dictatorship, and when it turned out to be legal, he retroactively made it legal.

Klisz:

10-01-2010 20:58:55 UTC

Er, turned out to be illegal, sorry.