Thursday, August 27, 2009

Proposal: Who’s helping most?

Passes 9-1. - Qwazukee

Adminned at 29 Aug 2009 14:59:37 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule, “Contribution”:

Contribution is a numeric value tracked in the GNDT, which defaults to zero, and which can be positive, negative, or zero.

Whenever a Survivor performs a daily or weekly action that causes the Food and Water to increase, that Survivor must also increase their Contribution by the same amount.
Whenever a Survivor performs a daily or weekly action that causes the Food and Water to increase, that Survivor must also decrease their Contribution by the same amount.
Whenever a Survivor Attacks another non-Infected Survivor, that Survivor must also decrease their Contribution by 5.
Whenever a Survivor Attacks another Infected Survivor, that Survivor must also increase their Contribution by 5.
Whenever a Survivor Fights a Maurauder, that Survivor must also increase their Contribution by 5.

In other words, help out the good guys, and your Contribution goes Up; help out the Infected or the Zombies, and your Contribution goes down. The idea is to encourage Survivors to perform selfless actions, or at least to reward them for doing so.

Comments

Klisz:

08-27-2009 16:49:14 UTC

for  I think the “Whenever a Survivor performs a daily or weekly action that causes the Food and Water to increase, that Survivor must also decrease their Contribution by the same amount” is a typo and can be fixed as such.

spikebrennan:

08-27-2009 17:02:41 UTC

for

ais523:

08-27-2009 17:04:30 UTC

Yep, second point’s a typo.

Qwazukee:

08-27-2009 17:10:39 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

08-27-2009 17:27:44 UTC

for

dogfish:

08-27-2009 19:52:52 UTC

for

Darknight:

08-27-2009 21:32:58 UTC

for

Apathetic Lizardman:

08-28-2009 00:56:48 UTC

for

Excalabur:

08-28-2009 02:04:15 UTC

It’s not at all clear it’s a typo.  you could just as well have written the rule the other way.  I would revert any changes made that changed the meaning of a word to its opposite on the ruleset.

against

And if you’re rewarding selfless actions, they aren’t selfless.

Qwazukee:

08-28-2009 02:06:10 UTC

It’s 2 letters, we can CfJ if you want to revert it.

ais523:

08-28-2009 15:19:16 UTC

@Excalabur: if they were truly selfless, there’d be no reason to perform them. (In other words, ‘in-game’ or ‘in-flavour’ selfless = a metagame reward.)

arthexis:

08-29-2009 05:57:01 UTC

for