Thursday, March 13, 2008

Proposal: Cabin Fever

Timed out and failed 7-1 - Admined by Chivalrybean

Adminned at 15 Mar 2008 15:20:38 UTC

This is proposal has several parts:
1) Make a new rule called “Sickness” that says:

The GNDT contains a column called ‘Sickness’. The eligible values are ‘Cabin Fever’, ‘Scurvy’. and ‘None’. If ever a captain has an undefined value for Sickness, eir Sickness value shall be changed to ‘None’.

2) In the rule “Scurvy” replace the following sentence:

This is to be tracked in the GNDT under Sickness. The eligible values are ‘Scurvy’ and ‘None’.

with:

Eir Sickness value in the GNDT shall be changed to ‘Scurvy’.

3) To encourage closer reading of the Ruleset, add a rule called “Cabin Fever” that says:

If a captain makes a redundant proposal (one that is already covered by the current Ruleset) or asks a redundant question (one that can be answered by direct quotation the current Ruleset) or raises a redundant objection to a proposal (one that ignores the current Ruleset), that Captain’s Sickness value in the GNDT shall be set to ‘Cabin Fever’.

If a Captain believes that eir action was not, in fact, redundant, e may raise a CfJ to revert eir sickness value upon its passage.

4) If proposal “Plugging holes” has passed, remove the sentence “New captains have a sickness of ‘none’.” from the rule “Scurvy” since it will be handled by the “Sickness” rule.

posted by Lugosh at 13 Mar 2008 22:02:01 UTC Comments (13)

Comments

Darknight: he/him

13-03-2008 23:40:09 UTC

against theres already sickness and this just seems confusing

Yoda:

14-03-2008 00:39:53 UTC

against Also, this punishes new captains who may not know all the rules yet.

Lugosh:

14-03-2008 00:39:55 UTC

This is not to make a new sickness column, just to make it it’s own rule with scurvy being one possible kind of sickness.

aaronwinborn:

14-03-2008 01:21:34 UTC

against I don’t like the idea of punishing new captains (or old, forgetful captains). On the other hand, what’s to say that ultimately ‘Cabin Fever’ wouldn’t be a prerequisite for victory…

spikebrennan:

14-03-2008 02:56:31 UTC

against _any_ question “can be answered by direct quotation [to] the current Ruleset” if you try hard enough.

Lugosh:

14-03-2008 03:30:57 UTC

I would enjoy some system that encourages new users to read the current Ruleset as one of eir first actions upon joining (it is not an unreasonably huge document) as well as encouraging all users to stay up to date with the Ruleset if they wish to contribute.

Spikebrennan: Who milks the cows?

Jack:

14-03-2008 12:54:54 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

14-03-2008 12:55:53 UTC

against I wouldn’t mind if captains were encouraged to read the ruleset, but we should never discourage captains from asking questions if they’re confused.

Lugosh:

14-03-2008 17:46:23 UTC

Would anyone vote for this if I removed the “redundant questions” bit?

spikebrennan:

14-03-2008 18:20:50 UTC

“Lugosh: I answer your question as follows—Rule 2.7 ‘Horses’ reads in its entirety, ‘Milking cows is a weekly action’.  The ruleset does not specify who milks the cows.  I have thus answered your question by direct quotation to the current ruleset.  You now have cabin fever, sorry.”

Have I made my point?

Lugosh:

14-03-2008 19:10:46 UTC

In my opinion, no. Because
1) I still do not know who milks the cows, and so do not feel like my question has been answered.
and
2) Your answer contains more text than just the quote from the ruleset (“The ruleset does not specify who milks the cows.”). By ‘direct quotation’ I meant with no further explanation.

An example of what I meant by a redundant question would be:
Q) “What happens when a captain’s fruit goes below zero?”
A) “Unless otherwise specified, game variables defined to hold numeric values can hold only non-negative integers, and any action that would set those values below zero instead sets them to zero.”

In any case, I concede that this rule is unpopular and unlikely to get passed in any form.

aaronwinborn:

14-03-2008 19:23:59 UTC

I think it also discourages discussion of the rules, which is healthy, especially when that particularly tricky rule comes along that gives a victory depending on the interpretation of the rule. I also come from the ‘no such thing as a stupid question’ camp.

Chivalrybean:

15-03-2008 05:35:05 UTC

against I milked the cows.