Monday, May 25, 2009

Proposal: Voting events, proposal version

Timed out -Darth

Adminned at 28 May 2009 00:42:45 UTC

Add a subrule to rule 2.1, with the title “Voting Events” and the following text:

If either no Contestant has ever become an Outsider, or at least 6 days have elapsed since the last time a Contestant became an Outsider, and there is no ongoing Voting Event, any Contestant may start a Voting Event by making a Story Post stating this. 24 hours after the post is created, the two Insiders with the most other Insiders Voting for them count as Nominated Contestants for the purpose of that Voting Event (all of the Insiders involved in a tie for the top-two-most-voted places become Nominated Contestants, if there is one, meaning that more than two Insiders can become Nominated). The Popularity of each of the Nominated Contestants for that Event is then calculated as follows, by starting at 0 and adding/subtracting the following modifiers:

  • +10 for each point of Fame that Contestant has;
  • +1 for each point of Looks that that Contestant has;
  • +3 for each point of Luck that that Contestant has;
  • +5 for each Insider who Supports that Contestant;
  • -12 for each Insider who is Voting for that Contestant.

The Nominated Contestant with the lowest Popularity then becomes an Outsider; if there is a tie for lowest Popularity, all Nominated Contestants involved in that tie become Outsiders. (The fact that someone may have been Nominated in one Voting Event is irrelevant for all other Voting Events.)

Comments

Wakukee:

05-25-2009 19:16:32 UTC

for Relax… this happens to everyone at one time or another : ).

Bucky:

05-25-2009 19:26:39 UTC

against .  Given that luck is supposed to be spendable, it shouldn’t play a role.

Kevan:

05-25-2009 19:50:17 UTC

for So should we ditch the existing vote-out mechanic, or have two?

Qwazukee:

05-25-2009 20:17:06 UTC

Sounds needlessly complicated. I like it.  for

I’m all for the 2 mechanics.

Darknight:

05-25-2009 21:32:42 UTC

imperial

ais523:

05-25-2009 22:02:57 UTC

@Kevan: This one was meant to be in addition to the current one. @Bucky: Giving a reason to not spend all of a spendable normally adds to a game, in my experience. And Luck doesn’t make that much of a difference in this scheme; it’s meant to reflect the fickle nature of the public.

Rodlen:

05-25-2009 22:37:19 UTC

imperial

Ienpw III:

05-26-2009 00:02:49 UTC

for

Bucky:

05-26-2009 00:17:01 UTC

@ais:Given the huge benefits of hoarding Luck under this scheme, you’d need to be a total idiot to spend it.

arthexis:

05-26-2009 00:31:00 UTC

for

Yoda:

05-26-2009 00:47:56 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

05-26-2009 01:35:57 UTC

@Bucky: Unless you could get Fame for it. . . .

Psychotipath:

05-26-2009 06:17:05 UTC

You could change it to spend luck for the plus three points declaring how much you are spending at any time before the event finishes.

SingularByte:

05-26-2009 09:19:45 UTC

for

ais523:

05-26-2009 14:11:03 UTC

@Bucky: “huge benefits”? Most of the time, it’s going to be Fame/Votes which decide who’s voted out.

Qwazukee:

05-26-2009 21:04:33 UTC

10-1.

smith:

05-27-2009 01:49:34 UTC

against

delta:

05-27-2009 11:50:54 UTC

for

Bucky:

05-27-2009 18:59:36 UTC

CoV for to clear the queue