Failed for not being legal. ~~Chronos.
Adminned at 12 Jul 2006 05:04:58 UTC
Reword Bribery! (1323/12/12) so it reads:
A Traveller may occasionally raise the Influence of a Traveller other than eirself by 1 and then raise eir own Influence by 1 .
Note this is local to 1323/12/12
Sorry I never got around to explaining that VETO. No, I don’t necessarily think that Local Rules should only be alterable by Local Proposals. However, I don’t want Travellers to start reasoning “I don’t have to put effort into time travelling to within Range of this Local Proposal. I’ll just make a normal Proposal to get rid of what I don’t like.” If there were a loophole in a Local Rule, or if a Traveller made some other argument about why it would make more sense for a certain Proposal to be non-Local, that would be okay.
In other news, this does not appear to be a legal Proposal under “No Traveller may make a Local Proposal with a Locale that is not in eir Range.”
You’re right, i’ve misread the year as 1423, which would be in range.
BlogNomic is an online Nomic: a self-modifying game where changing the rules is part of the game. Players make blog posts proposing additions or alterations to the ruleset, discussing and casting votes in the comments: if enough vote in favour, the rules are changed and play continues.
The game has been running since 2003 and resets every month or so. Have a look around the wiki for more information and history. New players are always welcome and can join in the game at any time.
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
Kevan: he/him
What was the reason for the veto of Grasshopper’s attempt to alter this rule by a normal proposal, by the way, Hix? Just a thematic decision that local rules should only be alterable by local proposals?