Thursday, December 02, 2010

Proposal: Age of Cuckolds (Not)

Self-killed. —Brendan

Adminned at 03 Dec 2010 15:28:00 UTC

If the Proposal titled “Age of Consus” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Add the following at the end of the rule “Mortals”:

If a mortal has a Spouse, then that mortal must also be his Spouse’s Spouse.

Sure, the Romans might have been lax on monogamy, but for the sake of simplicity I think we’re better off this way. =P

Comments

Darknight: he/him

02-12-2010 00:39:30 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

02-12-2010 00:47:44 UTC

against I’m not sure “must” works, here - what if we end up with A having B has their spouse, B having C, and C having A? We need an explicit mechanic to resolve conflicts, something like “If a Mortal’s Spouse does not have that Mortal as their own Spouse, both Mortals become Spouseless.”

Although really I’d be happy to leave all these restrictions blank, and just be careful about how we create Spouses, which we don’t have a rule for yet.

Roujo: he/him

02-12-2010 01:35:46 UTC

Crap. I see that now. =P

Roujo: he/him

02-12-2010 01:38:29 UTC

What about this:
“If Mortal A can only have it’s Spouse set to Mortal B if B does not have a Spouse. Once Mortal A’s Spouse is set to Mortal B, Mortal B’s Spouse is set to Mortal A.”

redtara: they/them

02-12-2010 02:25:16 UTC

imperial

Brendan: he/him

02-12-2010 02:58:06 UTC

against I say give polyamory a chance.

Josh: he/him

02-12-2010 07:47:54 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

02-12-2010 08:42:41 UTC

against

Blacky:

02-12-2010 08:46:43 UTC

against

Subrincinator:

02-12-2010 08:47:47 UTC

imperial

SethOcean:

02-12-2010 09:20:49 UTC

against per Brendan

Alecto:

02-12-2010 13:49:28 UTC

against  per Kevan

Ambisinister:

02-12-2010 19:46:35 UTC

against

scshunt:

03-12-2010 00:26:40 UTC

Monogamy laws violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. against

Roujo: he/him

03-12-2010 00:46:44 UTC

Ok then. This might get weird. =P

S/K against

Thelas:

03-12-2010 18:17:00 UTC

against