Thursday, May 29, 2008

Proposal: Fixing tech ownership holes up

vetoed—Yoda

Adminned at 29 May 2008 16:57:15 UTC

Replace “A DDA Member or Planar Entity may own zero or more pieces of Space Technology (abbr. Tech).” in the first paragraph of the rule 2.4 Technology with

A DDA Member or Planar Entity may be the owner of zero or more pieces of Space Technology (abbr. Tech). DDA Members and Planar Entities may only acquire or lose Tech by way of a successful proposal or as described by a rule.

If this proposal passes, all Tech owned by DDA Members is lost.

This is an attempt to prevent players from acquiring tech simply because there’s no reason they can’t - we need to be more careful about this in future, because this is the sort of thing that accidentally ends a dynasty early…

posted by Devenger at 29 May 2008 11:22:00 UTC Comments (10)

Comments

Amnistar: he/him

29-05-2008 11:47:05 UTC

against  Let me keep my tech for abusing the rule and I’ll vote for :)

arthexis: he/him

29-05-2008 13:24:49 UTC

for

Yoda:

29-05-2008 13:39:09 UTC

for You shouldn’t get to keep it.

Devenger:

29-05-2008 13:53:57 UTC

Yeah, I’m so going to change a fair and sensible proposal in your favour after you reverted me to a lame, common EnergyColor. [/lame-unjustified-discrimination]

Yoda:

29-05-2008 14:22:57 UTC

Nicely put.

Rodlen:

29-05-2008 14:33:08 UTC

for

Rodlen:

29-05-2008 16:28:22 UTC

veto Actually, we want to have the DPS and CCC to still exist.  This proposal would destroy the DPS and CCC.  Making them unowned is good. Destroying them is bad.

Devenger:

29-05-2008 19:11:54 UTC

Explain - how is a DDA Member losing a Tech removing the Tech from existence? Surely the DDA Member would no longer have a ‘copy’ of the Tech, but the Tech’s entry would be intact?

Or have I really messed up the wording?

Darknight: he/him

29-05-2008 19:20:19 UTC

its ok dev. everyone gets the wording wrong every now and then

Rodlen:

29-05-2008 20:31:28 UTC

Wording.