Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Proposal: Clearify victory conditions

Passes 8-2 yuri_dragon_17

Adminned at 10 Jul 2009 07:52:35 UTC

I don’t like that the victory conditions are scattered, even if it is only across two rules.

This proposal adds a new rule:

2.7.3 Stress Free

A Tourist is considered to be “Stress Free” when they have a Stress score of 0.

This proposal changes the number of the rule 2.7.3 Non-Tourist Characters with 2.4.7 Non-Tourist Characters.

This proposal deletes the last sentence of rule 2.8:

As long as a Tourist’s Stress is exactly zero, that Tourist is considered to be Stress Free.

as it would be covered in 2.7 Homeward Bound.

So much changes!  But yet stays exactly the same.

posted by Euler at 08 Jul 2009 01:28:00 UTC Comments (14)

Comments

Qwazukee: Idle

08-07-2009 06:59:19 UTC

for I’m all for reorganizing Rulesets.

Euler: Idle

08-07-2009 07:05:04 UTC

for

redtara: they/themIdle

08-07-2009 07:18:41 UTC

for  Non-tour activities
(Just so you know Euler, if you don’t vote on your own proposal, it’s counted as for )

Euler: Idle

08-07-2009 07:29:16 UTC

(Thanks for the information… but I probably would have for anyways.  The power of suggestion on others is strong :P)

Qwazukee: Idle

08-07-2009 07:55:08 UTC

Much harder to count, though.

ais523:

08-07-2009 09:41:54 UTC

for and it isn’t really that much harder to count, especially if the vote’s marked ‘explicit author FOR’ or similar. (We need an acronym that’s the opposite of CoV, really, meaning ‘this vote is a repeat of my last vote’).

Qwazukee: Idle

08-07-2009 09:55:40 UTC

RoV (repeat of Vote), might as well add it to the the language guide now.

Amnistar: he/himIdle

08-07-2009 13:25:56 UTC

for

arthexis: he/himIdle

08-07-2009 13:33:34 UTC

for

Wooble: Idle

08-07-2009 15:10:48 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

08-07-2009 23:30:37 UTC

for

Klisz: Idle

09-07-2009 13:46:51 UTC

FOR but this isn’t how proposals are usually written. “This proposal deletes the last sentence of rule 2.8:” would usually be written “Delete the last sentence of rule 2.8:”

However, I like this style better, and it’s completely legal.

Shem: Idle

09-07-2009 22:48:21 UTC

This proposal changes the number of the rule 2.7.3 Non-Tourist Characters with 2.4.7 Non-Tourist Characters.

I think you meant 2.7.4

against since Non-Tourist Characters talks about “the above victory conditions”, which would be below it after this change.

Qwazukee: Idle

10-07-2009 06:00:54 UTC

CoV against