Thursday, June 15, 2017

Proposal: Bad Dogs

Reaches quorum 7-0. Enacted by pokes.

Adminned at 17 Jun 2017 12:44:30 UTC

In “Dog Teams”, replace “If all Explorers that belong to the same Dog Team are able to move to the same Camp, any Explorer that belongs to that Dog Team may move each team member of their team that they have permission to do so from to that Camp as an Outdoors action.” with:-

When an Explorer (the “Navigator”) moves from one Location to another, they may apply the same change (at no cost) to any other members of their Dog Team who are at the Navigator’s starting Location, and who have given the Navigator permission to do so.

Move the paragraph beginning “If an Explorer has one or more Dog Sleds, they may change their camp to” to the end of the rule “Exploring”.

Making dog teams less weird, and more like the “when you move, drag some friends along for free” mechanic I assume they were originally meant to be.



06-15-2017 19:00:21 UTC

for Expeditious.


06-15-2017 20:04:07 UTC



06-15-2017 21:44:13 UTC

We don’t have an explicit mechanic for “giving permission” but going by layman use of the term (just expressing approval) and general necessity of proof to solve things in CFJs, I would take as valid that a public post or GNDT comment is good enough for “giving permission”.

I’d much prefer a formal procedure though but it’s alright enough.  for


06-15-2017 22:56:12 UTC

for I hate that a specific permission is needed.


06-15-2017 23:04:23 UTC

I didn’t want to double-up the proposal with trying to define permission, so this is just using the same vagueness as the current rule. Would also like to see this improved (eg. is private permission sufficient if both parties agree that it had happened?).


06-16-2017 17:06:58 UTC

for I think private permission would be legal, but other people couldn’t know that there was permission so it might look illegal to them.


06-16-2017 22:46:30 UTC

I still don’t like the permission system but imperial