Thursday, April 20, 2023

Proposal: Building Blocks of Safety

Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 21 Apr 2023 08:04:45 UTC

In "The Building", change

If no Build action has occurred in the previous 48 hours

to

If the Building is not Collapsed, but neither a Build action nor a Move On action has occurred in the previous 48 hours



Make illegal all Review Boards that's Opened at the point of Enactment of this Proposal.


In "Review Board", change

The Creation Conditions for a Review Board are that there must be no other Review Boards that are Open, and the body of the post must contain the name of exactly one non-idle Engineer whose Accident value is at least 1 or whose Safety Checks is a value below the current Building Number.

to

The Creation Conditions for a Review Board are that there must be no other Review Boards that are Open, and the body of the post must contain the name of exactly one Engineer whose Accident value is at least 1 or whose Safety Checks is not the greatest amongst all Engineers.

and change

* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word AUTHORISE, set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the Building Number (if their current Safety Checks value is less than the Building Number)

to

* If a number of Responses equal to Quorum included the word AUTHORISE, then set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the least Safety Checks that is strictly greater than their Safety Checks possessed by any other Engineers at the moment of Ending. If at the moment of Ending, the Candidate has the greatest Safety Checks amongst all Engineers, then instead, do nothing.

A less intrusive alternative to JonathanDark’s CfJ: we start by patching the scam. I think we’ll be fine as is right now. Just don’t make the victory condition related to the number of Safety Checks and we’ll be fine. Regarding rewarding Josh’s play, Josh still has the advantage of being the only person that can get a specialisation now.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

20-04-2023 17:16:39 UTC

This seems to compound the current problem rather than alleviating it? If I’m reading it right, a single AUTHORISE Review Board would always set the Safety Checks of its subject to the lowest value available +1, which would be 1 in the current situation while redtara is still active.

Josh: Observer he/they

20-04-2023 20:17:26 UTC

against

Lulu: she/her

20-04-2023 21:48:33 UTC

imperial

Taiga: he/him

20-04-2023 22:30:14 UTC

@Josh I think it will do what was intended. I don’t see a valid parsing of the clauses that would lead to the interpretation you have provided. The “least Safety Checks” is a set of values which doesn’t contain every positive integer.

Kevan: he/him

21-04-2023 06:55:51 UTC

Is “set the Candidate’s Safety Checks to the least Safety Checks that is strictly greater than their Safety Checks possessed by any other Engineers at the moment of Ending” saying that an AUTHORISE sets a player’s Safety Checks to those of the next player up the ladder? If you were authorised right now, your Safety Checks would be changed from 21 to 27, to match Jjm3x3?

If all Safety Checks do right now are allow players to buy Specialisation Changes (which cost seven million SC), AUTHORISE only paying out a dozen of them seems useless. I’d rather carry on getting seven million of them.

Taiga: he/him

21-04-2023 07:16:24 UTC

Yes that’s what it’s meant to do.

Also, withdrawn. against
Safety Checks are effectively fool’s gold right now. I’ve got enough to Build. It doesn’t really matter anymore. I’d rather the queue gets cleared up so I can make new Proposals.