Proposal: Adding structure to the Points system
Passes with Quorum FOR (12-0). -Bucky
This proposal will already be enacted before this is required, but for clarity’s sake:
+10 Score for arthexis
Adminned at 08 Oct 2009 12:58:23 UTC
If proposal “Back to the Basics again” failed, this proposal does nothing.
Add a sub-rule called “Leader board” under rule “Points”:
The Player with the highest Score amongst all Players is the Master. If two or more players are tied for the highest Score, no Player is the Master.
Add a sub-rule called “Accountability” under rule “Points”:
Whenever a Proposal is enacted or failed, if such an action would cause any player’s Score to be modified, the Admin who enacted it or failed it must explain on their Admin comment for that proposal all the appropriate Score modifications that are to take place due to that action.
Whenever a rule indicates that a Player’s Score is modified, any Player may carry out the adjustment in the GNDT, provided the adjustment is carried out only once. This rule supersedes every other rule that specifies who can modify a Player’s Score.
First: To create a term to distinguish who is currently winning. No benefits for being the Master yet, though I think it will probably be a double edged sword.
Second: The Admin can, instead of having to go and modify the GNDT, simply list the score changes (in case they get too tiresome or complex), for example “Darknight +10”. Then, anybody can make the adjustments. After all, if a player gains points, it’s in that player’s best judgement to claim them, and when they lose them, their enemies will stand up to do the work. I don’t think we need a time limit either, just let everything flow at the player’s rhythm.
Bucky: