Thursday, December 07, 2023

Proposal: Build Back Better

Times out and passes 5-0 with one unresolved def vote—Clucky

Adminned at 09 Dec 2023 01:32:28 UTC

In “Estates” replace “publicly tracked positive integer prestige” with

publicly tracked integer Prestige. If an Estates Prestige is 0 or less, it is considered to be Destitute

and replace “As a weekly atomic action for a given estate” with

As a weekly atomic action for a given estate that is not Destitute

Add the following to “Influence”

To spend a Resource means for an Heir to remove one of that Resource from their Resources—an Heir cannot spend a resource they don’t have

Add the following to “Estates”

An Estate’s Size is Equal to the number of Tracts it has. The Palatine of an Estate may spend a number of different resources equal to that Estate’s Size to add a Tract of their choice to it (each resource spent must be different).

An Estate’s Upkeep is calculated as follows

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Size !! Upkeep
|-
| 0 || 0
|-
| 1 || 0
|-
| 2 || 1
|-
| 3 || 3
|-
| 4 || 6
|-
| 5 || 10
|}

An Estate may never have more than 5 tracts

As a weekly communal action, any heir or the Old King may perform the following atomic action, known as Estate Upkeep
* Randomly remove one Tract from each Destitute Estate that has one or more Tracts
* Reduce the Prestige of every Estate by its Upkeep

Right now there is no way to increase your estate’s prestige, so adding multiple tracts is a death sentence but something similar to what Josh proposed here https://blognomic.com/archive/tempus_fugit4 could be added

Comments

SingularByte: he/him

07-12-2023 07:05:52 UTC

for

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

07-12-2023 07:23:21 UTC

for

Desertfrog:

07-12-2023 07:24:51 UTC

Prestige can still never be negative because “If a set of valid values is not specified in their definition, game variables defined to hold numeric values can hold only non-negative integers.” Therefore the upkeep of an estate with 0 prestige has no effect.

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

07-12-2023 07:31:13 UTC

I think we’ve had this argument before, about whether stating something is an integer is specifying the set of valid values implicitly, namely the set of integers from -infinity to +infinity

Kevan: he/him

07-12-2023 09:05:41 UTC

We have (mathematically-minded players accurately say that it is, but other players sometimes misread or miswrite the word integer to mean “round number”) and we were talking about a fix for it in April but never picked it back up.

for

Desertfrog:

07-12-2023 09:19:36 UTC

for

4st:

08-12-2023 15:28:00 UTC

imperial Just trying to make sure things reach quorum :)

Kevan: he/him

08-12-2023 15:33:20 UTC

[Forest] A DEF vote only gets a proposal to quorum if Old King Vovix votes in favour, which they haven’t yet and may not.