Monday, September 17, 2012

Proposal: BFFs Forever and Ever And Ever

Fails 1-8. — Quirck

Adminned at 19 Sep 2012 13:15:47 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule called “[BFF] BFFs” and give it the following text

Each Student has a BFF, tracked in the GNDT in a column called BFF. A Student’s BFF must the name of a (possibly idle) Student other than themselves or the empty string, and is the empty string by default.

As a weekly action, a Student may change their BFF to the name of any other Active Student.

If a Student has another Student as their BFF, and the later student also has the former student as their BFF, those two Students are considered to be Best Friends.

Anytime a Student Scores by a rule other than this one, if they are Best Friends with another Student and that Student, their BFF Scores.

Comments

quirck: he/him

17-09-2012 19:17:00 UTC

against I don’t like the idea of Scoring for just being BFF.

Though maybe i got it all wrong since i got lost in the last sentence. Who is “that student”, whose “their BFF” scores?

IceFromHell:

17-09-2012 19:46:07 UTC

against
I think something is on the last sentence.

Josh: Observer he/they

17-09-2012 19:49:06 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

17-09-2012 19:52:32 UTC

yeah I had another clause there but apparently didn’t clean it up right. It still technically works though.

You don’t score just for being BFF. You need the other person to reciprocate and become Best Friends. Encourages teamwork and all that.

IceFromHell:

17-09-2012 20:33:56 UTC

Hum… If we’re going for team work, I’d rather have a bigger team. But that’s just me.

Tee:

17-09-2012 21:49:08 UTC

imperial
Fix the wording, and I’ll approve.  I like solid rules with no loopholes

Bucky:

17-09-2012 21:58:15 UTC

against and recommend repropose

scshunt:

17-09-2012 23:06:38 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

18-09-2012 06:35:08 UTC

Note that Tee is not a player at the time of their vote on this proposal, so it doesn’t count.

Kevan: he/him

18-09-2012 10:55:08 UTC

imperial

Tee:

18-09-2012 13:23:51 UTC

imperial
Replacing my above vote

Murphy:

19-09-2012 19:12:32 UTC

against