Thursday, April 06, 2006

Proposal: Expanded Knowledge

1-5, timed out. -Elias IX

Adminned at 08 Apr 2006 09:09:46 UTC

Change the subrule “Knowledge” of the rule “Monk Stats” from

Knowledge is the measure of how much a Monk knows about Monking.

When each Monk votes on a Proposal, e may accompany eir vote with one or more relevant verses from the King James Bible (found HERE in the columns “Old Testament” and “New Testament”).  After that Proposal becomes Enacted or Failed, e may increase eir Knowledge by 1 at any time in the next 24 hours, up to 1 per Proposal e did this on.  However, if the Abbot believes the verse(s) is(are) irrelevant, e may deduct 2 from that Monk‘s Knowledge.  New Monks start with a Knowledge of 2.

to

Knowledge is the measure of how much a Monk knows about Monking.

When each Monk votes on a Proposal, e may accompany eir vote with one or more relevant verses from the King James Bible (One version can be found HERE in the columns “Old Testament” and “New Testament”. Verses found elsewhere, including those from the Apocrypha are also legal).  Each such verse must be identified correctly by book, chapter, and verse. After a Proposal becomes Enacted or Failed, each Monk who so posted a verse may increase eir Knowledge by one. No monk may increase eir Knowledge by more than 1 per Proposal to which they have posted a verse. If more than 24 hours have elapsed since the passage of the Proposal, such a Monk must put the name of the Proposal for which e is increasing his Knowledge in the GNDT comment field.  If a Monk posts to a Proposal a verse with identical indentification to one alread posted by another Monk in that Proposal, or incorrectly identifies a verse, or posts a verse e has already posted to a different Proposal within the last day, e may not increase eir Knowledge for that verse. If e does, any Monk may reverse the increment. In the event of a dispute, the Abbot’s word is final. If the Abbot believes a verse is irrelevant, e may deduct 2 from the posting Monk‘s Knowledge.  New Monks start with a Knowledge of 2.

Link the word HERE in the replacement text to the page to which the word HERE in the replaced subrule is currently linked.

Comments

Bucky:

06-04-2006 20:38:42 UTC

against .  My principal objection is that your version allows verse from “elsewhere” without providing a way of verifying them, and also allows corrupted versions of verses.  It even implies that verses from non-biblical sources might be allowed.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossialns 2:8)

ChronosPhaenon:

06-04-2006 21:51:03 UTC

against (sigh)

Elias IX:

06-04-2006 22:26:41 UTC

against

No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence. (Psalm 101:7)

Hix:

06-04-2006 22:53:41 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

06-04-2006 23:22:11 UTC

I like the idea of re-writing the Knowledge rules. But the Apocrpyha? Why not the Gnostic Bible, while we’re at it? ;)

Nothing against the mechanics—I particularly like the general enforcement. Does anybody else see any problems with this, or are we voting against the flavor?

Elias IX:

07-04-2006 00:06:16 UTC

I’m not sure about you, but I’m voting against the length of the rewrite.

By the way, have you decided on a new Veto icon?

Angry Grasshopper:

07-04-2006 00:20:04 UTC

Certainly the formatting could be better, but I think that the mechanics (excluding the source material) are alright. Haven’t made up my mind if I like this or not.

No, I haven’t picked a veto icon. I couldn’t think of a symbol (no, I’m not using that one), so it’s still blank. I don’t actually need a veto icon, although it is a nice touch.

If anyone has any idea that doesn’t have a big cross in it, I’m open to suggestions.

Elias IX:

07-04-2006 00:57:04 UTC

A flask, or a chalice.

Angry Grasshopper:

07-04-2006 00:58:38 UTC

Or a book, or a skull. I’ll make some between now and Sunday, and see which is the best. Thanks.

Plorkyeran:

07-04-2006 07:58:40 UTC

against

You don’t have to say that you can’t do things which you can’t do, and all the words saying that you can’t makes the rule fairly unreadable.