Sunday, April 02, 2023

Proposal: Block Chains

Timed out 4 votes to 3. Enacted by Kevan, taking the “In the same rule” clause literally as not depending on Underlay’s non-enactment.

Adminned at 04 Apr 2023 12:39:04 UTC

Reword the subrule “Integrity” (or create it as a subrule of The Building if it doesn’t exist) to the following:

Each Block of the Building has an Integrity score, which is an integer that is not publicly tracked but which is an emergent property of its relative position and composition in the Building, and which must be specifically recalculated whenever it is called upon in the completion of an action.
A Block’s Integrity is -1 if it is Empty.  Otherwise, it is the number of consecutive blocks directly above itself that are not _, plus the number of Supportive blocks below it.  Then, if the block is Heavy, the Integrity score is doubled.

If “That Guy Who Topples Your Tower For No Reason” passed, add the following to “Integrity”:

If the block is Weakened, the Integrity score is halved, rounding down.

If “Underlay, Underlay, A Rebar, A Rebar” did not pass, add the following to the rule Building Contents, before the table:

Each Material may have Properties, as determined by the table below.

In the same rule, add a new column to the table for Properties, and give Stone the value “Heavy, Supportive” in that column. Add the following new Material to the table:

| Rebar || R || Modern girders to support vertical construction. || Supportive

A hopefully more intuitive take on Integrity scores.  I’m not sure I correctly worded all of this, but the intent was for something like the bottom block in WWW_WWW to have an Integrity Score of 2.


jjm3x3: he/him

02-04-2023 13:44:17 UTC

Dosen’t the first wood block after the empty block also have an Integrity score of 2? Not sure if you meant for that.

Lulu: she/her

02-04-2023 13:53:58 UTC

Yes, that is intended.

lendunistus: he/him

03-04-2023 04:52:07 UTC

last clause is going to trigger regardless of whether or not Rebar passed

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

03-04-2023 05:37:41 UTC


Kevan: he/him

03-04-2023 08:36:02 UTC


Josh: he/they

03-04-2023 09:44:26 UTC

against This strips out some of the fun nuance of the original, such as Heavy blocks being counterproductive to Integrity if they’re higher up.

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

03-04-2023 13:12:19 UTC

Josh has a good point, but since we’re not using Integrity for anything yet, I think we’re safe to patch that part up in whatever Proposal does wind up using Integrity.

jjm3x3: he/him

03-04-2023 18:31:30 UTC

I agree with Josh on this one against

Brendan: he/him

03-04-2023 19:23:10 UTC



04-04-2023 02:07:44 UTC

against per Josh