Tuesday, April 07, 2020

Proposal: Check Your Privilege

Vetoed upon Ascension. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 08 Apr 2020 15:13:43 UTC

Repeal “Privileges of the Nobility”.

In “Theft and Vagrancy”, after “As a Weekly Action, a Nobleman may spend 2 Prestige and remove an Item from another Nobleman’s Estate to add it to their own.”, add:-

(A Nobleman may not select the Estate of a Nobleman whose Prestige is greater than their own at the start of the action, for this action.)

Removing the big vague “shall not have life nor limb threatened by any persons” (is this meant to apply to Duels? Does it also apply to someone gambling encouragingly on a Duel you’re involved in? Or a Show of Force from the Palace Guard? Or a particularly aggressively-worded Umbrage?) and moving the Privilege protection into the Theft rule - also clarifying whether Prestige is compared before or after the spend.

posted by Kevan at 07 Apr 2020 11:11:00 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

07-04-2020 11:41:01 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

07-04-2020 14:30:55 UTC

for

Lulu: she/her

07-04-2020 14:48:42 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

07-04-2020 14:55:14 UTC

against was pretty clear to me that the protection previously was compared after the spend, and feels a bit late in the dynasty to change this

naught:

07-04-2020 15:18:17 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

07-04-2020 15:22:47 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

07-04-2020 16:11:16 UTC

[Clucky] “may spend 2 Prestige and remove an Item” reads as if the two things are simultaneous, to me. This falls in your favour, though, doesn’t it, with your 7 Prestige?

pencilgame: he/him

07-04-2020 16:12:12 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

07-04-2020 18:13:27 UTC

@Kevan My prestige is high enough that I can steal from anyone right now regardless of how you interpret the rule. I’d rather have the extra safety of knowing someone needs my prestige + 2 to steal anything. So its definitely a bit of a selfish X. I think the wording you have is probably more inline with the intended spirit of the rule, but as its written I feel the order implies first you spend, then you remove, but can’t remove because of the rule. And its in my interest to keep it that way

Kevan: he/him

07-04-2020 19:14:45 UTC

Ah, fair enough.

Clucky: he/him

08-04-2020 15:12:19 UTC

veto vetoing old dynastic proposals