Thursday, February 12, 2009

Proposal: Frag Accidents V2

It has been again brought to the proposal of the Senior Officers that a certain individual is intent on the fracture of our great nation through the use of handheld explosives, and rumours that our soldiers live in mere tents and not great citadels. This is Unacceptable; this proposal is closed and work is ongoing to identify the culprit, still hiding behind their flimsy user alias.

Reporting, Devenger.

(Timed out after 48 hours; failed 4-7, 3 abstains [+ 1 invalid by General])

Adminned at 14 Feb 2009 13:07:33 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule, titled Grenades, with the following text:

There is a statistic, tracked in the GNDT, called Frag Grenades.  New Soldiers start with one frag grenade.

Give each soldier 1 frag grenade.

Give Amnistar 3 more frag grenades.

If more than half of the valid votes on this proposal contain the text “Accidents happen”, create a subrule of the rule Grenades, titled Accidents, with the following text:

As a weekly action, a Soldier, hereby known as the Grenadier, may find that one of their grenades is by another Soldier (hereby known as the Target), with the pin pulled. By accident, of course.  To do that, the Grenadier must decrease their Frag Grenades stat by one, and roll DICE4.  The Target’s health is then decreased by an amount equal to the result of that roll.  The General may not be the Target of this.  If this action would decrease the Grenadier’s Frag Grenades to an amount below 0, this action cannot be done by that soldier. A Soldier may not be the Target more than once a week.

Accidental frag grenade explosions are still frowned upon by the General.

Comments

Rodlen:

12-02-2009 20:32:11 UTC

for Author for, Accidents happen

arthexis: he/him

12-02-2009 20:53:40 UTC

against

Devenger:

12-02-2009 21:57:17 UTC

for Accidents are avoidable.

TrumanCapote:

12-02-2009 22:24:24 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

12-02-2009 22:24:34 UTC

imperial

Devenger:

12-02-2009 22:49:28 UTC

also, these need to be somehow throwable with the veto symbol, for awesomeness

Klisz:

12-02-2009 23:29:13 UTC

imperial

Sparrow:

12-02-2009 23:39:13 UTC

imperial

Amnistar: he/him

12-02-2009 23:55:14 UTC

imperial Same as last time guys.  If yo uwant it, go for it, I have no opinion on this one.

Qwazukee:

13-02-2009 00:01:50 UTC

I don’t like it, it seems to be at cross-purposes to injure ourselves while we’re fighting the invading enemy.

Qwazukee:

13-02-2009 00:02:24 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2009 01:01:47 UTC

against Getting a bit fed up of sub-proposals that can only require half of quorum to be in favour to enact. “If half the voters say X” is, sadly, not a way to get two proposals for the price of one.

TrumanCapote:

13-02-2009 01:24:26 UTC

Kevan, I think “If more than half of the valid votes on this proposal contain” is different than “If more than half of the valid votes FOR this proposal contain”

I definitely have a problem with the second, but not the first.  The first counts no votes.  Am I missing something?

Rodlen:

13-02-2009 03:33:58 UTC

I believe that the first counts all votes, for, against, or deferential.

Wakukee:

13-02-2009 05:01:29 UTC

against

SingularByte: he/him

13-02-2009 09:48:35 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2009 09:55:24 UTC

[Truman] Sure, the first is better, but they both involve a game change requiring less than a quorum of players being in favour of it, so it’s not the same as a second proposal.

The fair way to have a sub-proposal would be to say “if a quorum of players say X with their vote”, but proposals wouldn’t always last long enough to rack up enough comments.

Amnistar: he/him

13-02-2009 17:35:35 UTC

Kevavn, no it doesn’t require less than a qourum any more than proposal do.  The proposal first has to pass, meaning that half the votes or more (but not neccessarily qourum) are FOR the proposal. 

THEN out of all those that vote, half or more (but not neccessarily qourum) are FOR the change.  It’s a means of working around the proposal limit, not the qourum limit, because it is effectively two proposals in one, with a different method of counting votes.

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2009 19:45:57 UTC

As you say, half or more of voters is “not necessarily quorum”, and (in a straight all-FOR vote) could be as little as half of quorum.

I appreciate these clauses are mostly intended to get around the proposal limit, but they ignore quorum (and timeout) as a result of that.

Qwazukee:

13-02-2009 20:03:28 UTC

So don’t vote for if you think that that situation will come up. Sensible enough.

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2009 21:01:00 UTC

That’s what I do. But I think a lot of other players are voting these things through under the misconception that they’re effectively getting a full vote on two combined proposals.

ais523:

13-02-2009 22:42:13 UTC

for in the hope of getting some sort of gameplay going.

Qwazukee:

14-02-2009 06:17:38 UTC

4-5-4, people who defered might want to vote again ‘cause it looks like Amni’s not gonna.

Igthorn:

14-02-2009 06:50:37 UTC

against

Wooden Squid:

14-02-2009 20:22:21 UTC

against