Thursday, April 15, 2021

Proposal: Favours Mk II [Special Case]

Reaches quorum at 8-2. - Jumble

Adminned at 17 Apr 2021 04:26:40 UTC

Remove the rule “Favours” and its subrules. Add a Special Case rule called “Favours [Active]”

While this rule is active, AIs can grant one another Favours via the methods defined in the Dynastic rule called “Granting Favours”, if such a rule exists. Favours are resources unique to the individual who granted them (referred to as the Favour’s ‘lender’), but a given AI cannot hold more than five Favours at a time regardless of their lenders. Favours have a ripeness, which defaults to unripe. Immediately after an Ascension Address is posted, all ripe Favours disappear and then all unripe Favours become ripe. If a Facility Head Passes the Mantle, any existing Favour for which they are the lender is turned into a Favour for which the new Facility Head is the lender.
The list of Favours each AI has is tracked in the wikipage [[Favours]]. When this rule is changed from Inactive to Active, the Favours that were tracked the last time this rule was Active remain.
An AI may at any time choose to release any or all of the Favours they hold, losing them and gaining nothing in return. An AI who has a ripe Favour may at any time claim it, spending it to gain a benefit based on the status of that Favour’s lender:
* If the lender is the Facility Head, the claiming AI immediately gains a single point of any resource of their choosing that is described only in the Dynastic Rules. Any details the gained resource has apart from quantity are chosen by the Facility Head, who should be generous if possible.
* If the lender is an active AI who is not the Facility Head, the lender immediately gives to the claiming AI (even if it could not normally be transferred) a single point of any resource of the claiming AI’s choosing, so long as it is described only in the Dynastic Rules and the lender has at least one point of that resource to give.
* If the lender is idle, the claiming AI immediately gains an unripe Favour with the lender as its lender.

Maintain the existence of any Favours held by AIs in the moment between the deletion of the Dynastic rule Favours and the addition of the Special Case rule Favours.

how’s this for a favours fix?

Comments

Clucky: he/him

15-04-2021 23:14:35 UTC

Making favors special case means that if anyone turns it off, all favors expire.

I’m also confused by what stuff like “Any details the gained resource has apart from quantity are chosen by the Facility Head, who should be generous if possible.” mean—you can only use it to request numerical values so what else is there for the Facility Head to determine?

Janet: she/her

15-04-2021 23:15:42 UTC

Does this destroy all of the existing favors in the instant while they are undefined?

lemon: she/her

15-04-2021 23:21:02 UTC

the wikipage remains the same, i don’t see why it would cause favours to be removed when this is deactivated. i can edit in a clause for clarity tho.

and clucky, why does it have to me numerical? is it the word “point”? say a dynasty has rules for swords. the idea is that the player could request an instance of the Sword resource, but the facility head would be the one to determine the sword’s stats (dmg, reach, weight, etc), if that makes sense. maybe it should be “a single point or instance of any resource”

Janet: she/her

15-04-2021 23:25:12 UTC

I meant in the instant between the repeal of the Dynastic Rule and the enactment of the Special Case Rule, because in that instant no rule would be defining Favors, though what happens when the Special Case Rule is inactive is also a good point.

lemon: she/her

15-04-2021 23:27:52 UTC

how’s this for a set of three edits? 2 clauses to keep favours from getting wiped, one clause to clarify that a resource doesn’t need to be numerical

Zack: he/him

15-04-2021 23:34:10 UTC

I don’t think this proposal destroys/wipes any favors? It doesn’t modify anything on the Favors wikipage, and that page remains gamestate.

lemon: she/her

15-04-2021 23:35:06 UTC

^ i thought so too, but better safe than sorry i spose

Clucky: he/him

15-04-2021 23:37:07 UTC

a point is a numerical value. you can’t just use it to suddenly mean any resource at all.

also if the favors rule is inactive, its flavor text, and doesn’t do anything, and so favors become undefined. its a bit of a chicken and egg problem where the current state of special case rules do not allow them to persist values if they go inactive

lemon: she/her

15-04-2021 23:39:28 UTC

well, now there’s a clause that ensures continuity of favours (immediately after the “favours are tracked on this page” clause) and the added terminology of “instance” for non-numerical resources :0

Janet: she/her

15-04-2021 23:49:46 UTC

> I don’t think this proposal destroys/wipes any favors? It doesn’t modify anything on the Favors wikipage, and that page remains gamestate.

I don’t know that the earlier version would have, I was genuinely asking whether it did because I’m curious about how the rules handle this case.

Clucky: he/him

16-04-2021 00:34:22 UTC

someone could still edit the favors page, which is no longer gamestate, and then argue that the favors they gave themselves are now valid once it becomes gamestate

overall I feel like we should really wait and see just what kind of effect favors have on the dynasty before codifying them as a special case rule

Clucky: he/him

16-04-2021 00:36:27 UTC

also the “instance of resource” change is super unfair to people who don’t have favors. we should keep favors how they were originally designed, not make them even more powerful only after certain people got favors and certain people didn’t

lemon: she/her

16-04-2021 00:42:56 UTC

“instance or resource” is how i intended it from the start, but that *is* fair. i’ll revert the “or resource” part and consider putting it in at some point in the future :0

lemon: she/her

16-04-2021 00:54:05 UTC

*u get me

Clucky: he/him

16-04-2021 00:54:38 UTC

doesn’t seem like something we should really have in the future, as it requires arbitrary determinations by the emperor which is hard to keep fair, and is very hard to build a dynasty to guard against. Building dynasties to guard against resource swapping will already a big challenge

Darknight: he/him

16-04-2021 07:00:41 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

16-04-2021 08:27:59 UTC

for to putting this into Special Case instead of a pseudo-special “cannot repeal this rule” dynastic, which is all it seems to be changing now.

Josh: he/they

16-04-2021 08:48:54 UTC

for

Lulu: she/her

16-04-2021 09:28:28 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

16-04-2021 12:14:28 UTC

for

pokes:

16-04-2021 13:11:55 UTC

for

Janet: she/her

16-04-2021 13:36:51 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

16-04-2021 16:20:01 UTC

Doesn’t this still have the problem that “the Favours that were tracked the last time this rule was Active remain.” allows favours that were added to the page while it wasn’t gamestate to suddenly exist?

Kevan: he/him

16-04-2021 16:31:59 UTC

[Clucky] I think you’re right, yes. Maybe we should change it to reverting to whatever version it had the last time that the rule was active (which should be easy enough to find).

Zack: he/him

16-04-2021 16:54:29 UTC

against because the Favours page becomes flavor text while the rule is inactive

Brendan: he/him

16-04-2021 19:03:25 UTC

for assuming we can fix the flavor-state issues!