Friday, January 29, 2021

Proposal: Do Puns Count As Scams?

Timed Out. Fails 2-2—Clucky

Adminned at 31 Jan 2021 18:51:59 UTC

Add a new dynasty rule called “Second Amendment Treaty”

Dependencies: Arms Disclosure Treaty, Bears

Each Bear has a non-negative integer of Guns, which is equal to the number of Surplus they have allocated to “Exercising Bear Rights”, which are tracked on the Bears section of the Treaty Appendices wiki page.

A Bear may never choose to reduce their allocation to “Exercising Bear Rights”. If their Surplus Allocations already exceed their total Surplus, they must first reduce their Allocations elsewhere

Comments

Kevan: he/him

29-01-2021 11:29:40 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

29-01-2021 11:46:05 UTC

imperial CoV.

Raven1207: he/they

29-01-2021 13:23:25 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

29-01-2021 14:35:01 UTC

imperial only cause I’m not a bear

Bucky:

29-01-2021 18:30:53 UTC

for per Darknight

Kevan: he/him

30-01-2021 13:42:37 UTC

Idling myself at this point, I’m not really getting into the wacky metadynasty mood of “players are warlords who can turn into bears to eat honey yet also have guns” here.

Bucky:

31-01-2021 05:07:30 UTC

Hmm… Actually, I’m going to flip against . Both because I’m not a fan of outright forbidding deallocation, and because it pushed another player to idle in protest.

Clucky: he/him

31-01-2021 06:59:43 UTC

It doesn’t forbid deallocation, it just forces people to prioritize

but anyways, catering to what people who don’t want to play the dynasty want over what people who do want to play the dynasty want is strongly making me not want to play the dynasty

Clucky: he/him

31-01-2021 07:07:52 UTC

to clarify, I’m not going idle for now. I just think its not a good reason to kill a proposal especially one no one is actively against

Kevan: he/him

31-01-2021 08:24:54 UTC

That wasn’t in final-straw reaction to this proposal specifically, it was a reaction to the general tone of the dynasty. The rules just ask me to leave a blog comment somewhere when I go idle.