Thursday, February 12, 2009

Proposal: Friends don’t let friends break the rules

Quorum -SB

Adminned at 14 Feb 2009 01:58:00 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule:

There may be certain things that are physically possible, but which go against the spirit needed for a functioning army to behave. What constitutes such a breach of martial law is described in subrules to this rule. If any Soldier (the Informant) notices another Soldier (the Culprit; this cannot be the General) has breached martial law, they can Report it in a story post; no particular breach may be reported more than once (but if more than one breach occurs, each can be reported). Upon a correct Report, the half of the Culprit’s Ammo is transferred to the Informant; in addition to this fine, the Culprit’s Health decreases by 3.

Martial law is efficient. Martial punishments are painfully gruelling. Friends don’t let friends break the rules.

posted by ais523 at 12 Feb 2009 12:18:01 UTC Comments (20)

Comments

Kevan: Concierge he/him

12-02-2009 12:31:54 UTC

Who judges whether a report is “Correct”?

SingularByte: he/him

12-02-2009 12:37:51 UTC

for Presumably if a report was incorrect, it would be reversed like most illegal actions are.

ais523:

12-02-2009 12:39:49 UTC

@Kevan: yep, punishing someone for an incorrect report works just the same way as changing numbers illegally in the GNDT for any other reason. It just doesn’t happen (gets reverted), and if there’s a row you CFJ about it.

Kevan: Concierge he/him

12-02-2009 12:45:29 UTC

Okay, I was just a bit thrown by the two-stage “post a report, it will then be processed it if it’s correct” description of it.

for

Sparrow:

12-02-2009 13:06:10 UTC

for

But I would like it better if the Culprit’s Loyalty were decreased by 1 and the Informant’s Loyalty were increased by 1 (and maybe vice-versa with an incorrect report) rather than the Ammo/Health fine.

Rodlen:

12-02-2009 15:37:19 UTC

against Rule has no title.

Kevan: Concierge he/him

12-02-2009 15:48:55 UTC

Inelegant, perhaps, but nothing says that rules have to have titles.

Rodlen:

12-02-2009 15:51:47 UTC

Well, a rule kind of needs a title to go into the wiki the way we have been doing things.

Plus, lately, we, the players, have operated under the assumption that a titleless rule won’t work.

ais523:

12-02-2009 16:04:25 UTC

@Rodlen: Presumably, you can just add the rule number as part of the title to get the wiki formatting to work. (Agora has a rule saying that the Rulekeepor gets to title rules if the proposer forgets to; obviously that’s made me grow sloppy…)

TrumanCapote:

12-02-2009 16:41:33 UTC

for

Elias IX:

12-02-2009 16:46:14 UTC

for We’ve had untitled rules in the past, and until this rule gets named (if ever), you can refer to it as 2.X if it’s the Xth dynastic rule created.

Amnistar: he/him

12-02-2009 16:59:09 UTC

for

Klisz:

12-02-2009 17:37:22 UTC

ais523: That explains some proposals made by eljefe in the First Metadynasty of Rodlen…

Wooden Squid:

12-02-2009 20:08:55 UTC

imperial

Darknight: he/him

12-02-2009 22:11:11 UTC

for

Devenger:

12-02-2009 22:15:08 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

12-02-2009 23:41:29 UTC

I like the idea, wish it had a title. imperial

Loses 3 health? Are we, like, beating em to death?

Wakukee:

13-02-2009 05:04:15 UTC

against  veto What an awesome veto…  against

Qwazukee:

14-02-2009 06:14:16 UTC

10-2.

Igthorn:

14-02-2009 06:22:39 UTC

for