Thursday, May 03, 2007

Proposal: Death and Destruction


Adminned at 04 May 2007 16:12:23 UTC

Add the following to the Machine rule:

Every Variable and Part has the state “Blown Up”. If a Part is in this state, it cannot be Activated. If a Variable is in this state, it cannot affect any Parts or Variables.



03-05-2007 22:17:06 UTC

against There is no “Machine” Rule.
Parts don’t have States.
There’s no such thing as “Activated”.
What do you mean by a Variable’s not being able to affect any Parts or Variables?


03-05-2007 22:49:41 UTC



03-05-2007 22:52:22 UTC

against per Hix

Amnistar: he/him

03-05-2007 23:01:48 UTC

against no…because…no…...

Amnistar: he/him

03-05-2007 23:02:38 UTC

In fact… veto


03-05-2007 23:06:37 UTC

Besides, “state” =/= “possible state”.

This proposal purports to change the “state” of all Variables to a so-called “state” that is not listed among the “possible states” of any Variable.


04-05-2007 15:55:07 UTC

First of all, Amnistar has no grounds to veto this proposal, so I think that’s just dumb. If it’s a bad idea, just vote against it. The veto is supposed to shoot down proposals that would make the game fundamentally not work. Anyway, if you veto it, you should at least give some reason. Don’t just veto it because you don’t like it.


04-05-2007 17:28:48 UTC

This Proposal _does_ make the game fundamentally not work.

Even if that weren’t true, e’d be well within eir rights to veto a Proposal “because e doesn’t like it”.

In this particular case, I assume the VETO had at least a little to do with the fact that e didn’t want YESMAN bonuses to be possible through this Proposal.


04-05-2007 18:50:30 UTC

How does it make the game not work? Anyway, it may be technically within Amnistar’s rights, but it’s not nice and it’s an abuse of power. There’s no reason for it.


04-05-2007 19:03:47 UTC

There’s no reason for it?  Read the comments!  I found several reasons among them:

1)  You’re trying to edit a Rule that doesn’t exist.
2)  You’re trying to set a Part’s State, but Parts don’t have states.
3)  “If a Variable is in this state, it cannot affect any Parts or Variables.” remains vague, since neither of your comments explained what you meant by this.
4)  You are trying to set all Variable’s States to something that is not even one of their possible states.  Besides, what’s the point of having Variables if they’re not allowed to vary?
5)  YESMAN bonuses cannot be earned from a vetoed Proposal.

This Proposal is broken in so many ways that it would be dangerous for it to be Enacted.  Not only was Amnistar justified in eir VETO, but it would have been irresponsible of the CEO to not do everything in eir power to make sure that this Proposal does not pass.


04-05-2007 19:20:35 UTC

All this Proposal does is allow for parts and variables to be destroyed. I am not setting the variables’ states, I am giving them a possible state. It should be obvious what rule I’m referring to, even if Machine is not the exact name. Perhaps State is the wrong word when applied to Parts, but Parts should have States. It should be obvious what the variable-in-this-state clause means—it just means that no part can be initiated by the variable while it’s in this state. Anyway, yes there is a Machine rule. Try using your head. Anyway, who cares about Yesman bonuses?


04-05-2007 19:21:20 UTC

Also, if you have a problem, discuss it, don’t insult me.