Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Proposal: Externalizing the Rules

Cannot be enacted without a CoV, and therefore fails at 1-10. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 30 Mar 2011 07:10:24 UTC

If the Rule “Board and Pieces” does not exist, this Proposal does nothing.

A Move Suggestion is a blog post whose subject contains the text “[Move]” and whose body names exactly one Station as its Destination.  A Move Suggestion should also contain a rationalization for the move.

Any Player may object to a Move Suggestion by making a comment on it including an AGAINST or VETO voting icon accompanied by an explanation of why the move is inappropriate.  If a player does so, the Move Suggestion is ‘rejected’.

24 hours after a Move Suggestion is created, if it is not rejected, it becomes ‘successful’ and the Location of its author becomes the Destination.

A Move Suggestion cannot be created if its author is the author of the most recent successful Move Suggestion or an existing Move Suggestion that is neither successful nor rejected.  A post that is not a Move Suggestion cannot be edited to make it into a Move Suggestion.

If you think this is too spammy - well, most games between competent players last less than 25 moves, and 25 extra posts per dynasty doesn’t seem that excessive for the main mechanic.

Comments

Kevan: City he/him

29-03-2011 19:32:11 UTC

But we have 18 players! A month-long game where you only get to make 1.3 moves sounds a bit drawn-out.

Klisz:

29-03-2011 19:46:51 UTC

imperial

Winner:

29-03-2011 20:12:18 UTC

imperial

we should use the gndt

Travis:

29-03-2011 21:12:11 UTC

imperial The rule lets a single Player veto every move made by any other Player in the game. If someone is in a bad mood one day they could grind the whole game to a halt perfectly legally. I think players need more freedom to move than the rule allows.

Darknight: he/him

29-03-2011 21:46:49 UTC

against Per Travis. There have been plenty of days where I’ve seen a player here show up in a bad mood and unintentionally start griefing and grinding. Or just come along and not give Wak and Qwaz a fair chance to play back in the days of a yr or two ago.

Winner:

30-03-2011 00:02:46 UTC

against per travis

Florw:

30-03-2011 00:04:15 UTC

against

lilomar:

30-03-2011 02:15:06 UTC

imperial

Saakara:

30-03-2011 05:25:16 UTC

against

Ely:

30-03-2011 06:10:19 UTC

against I tried to comment this yesterday but for some reason the server did not want it. Per Travis, I just want to add that the whole game could become a login-at-the-right-time matter.

Kevan: City he/him

30-03-2011 13:32:37 UTC

against Per consensus and the absence of counterargument.

Purplebeard:

30-03-2011 14:08:57 UTC

against