Thursday, July 06, 2006

Proposal: From the depths of time…

Failed 9-2 by “It has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those votes being changed.” in rule 1.5.  If anybody feels this isn’t the case, lemme know.  I haven’t seen this used before.

~Greth

Adminned at 07 Jul 2006 18:16:49 UTC

To Rule 2.3, ‘Calendar’, add the following text:

Additionally, a Game Date may take an Extended Form when permitted by another rule. A Game Date in Extended Form is an entry from the following list:

  • Cambrian
  • Carboniferous
  • Permian
  • Triassic
  • Jurassic
  • Cretaceous
  • End of Time
  • The Timeless Moment
  • Unknown

For reference, the Cambrian Era is approximately 500 million years ago (m.y.a),  the Carboniferous Era 350 m.y.a, the Permian 300 m.y.a, the Triassic 250 m.y.a, the Jurassic 200 m.y.a, and the Cretaceous is 150 m.y.a.

Amend Rule 2.4, ‘Whenever you go, then you are’, to read:

Each Traveller has a Temporal Location (TL), which is tracked in the GNDT as a Game Date in Standard or Extended Form. New Travellers start at TL 1419/11/26.

There are other important geological eras. If I missed your favorite, I’m sure we could add it to the list. Thanks to Bucky for ‘The Timeless Moment’ and ‘Unknown’.

posted by Angry Grasshopper at 06 Jul 2006 03:16:01 UTC Comments (12)

Comments

Coldspell:

06-07-2006 05:40:58 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

06-07-2006 06:10:35 UTC

against A nice idea, but it seems a bit hazy on how it fits into the current timeline mechanics. (If I travel to 500,000,000 BC, do I change my TL to “Cambrian” or not? How do we fit “approximate” values into Continuum sums?)

Angry Grasshopper:

06-07-2006 06:16:15 UTC

It’s intentionally hazy on that point—it’s more of an enabling rule than anything.

I imagine that if you were going back to 500,000,000 BC, you’d handle it however using whatever rules that allowed you to make that play.

Excalabur:

06-07-2006 06:28:45 UTC

ick.
against

Thelonious:

06-07-2006 08:46:05 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

06-07-2006 08:54:30 UTC

There would immediately be rules that would mix numerical dates with these vaguer ones, though. If I’m at 600 million BC, can I vote on a Local Proposal in the Cambrian era, or am I not “approximately” near enough?

ChronosPhaenon:

06-07-2006 12:47:43 UTC

against I like the current timeline.

Purplebeard:

06-07-2006 18:12:01 UTC

against

Hix:

06-07-2006 20:54:30 UTC

against

TAE:

06-07-2006 23:07:15 UTC

against
Theese seem to create points outside of “normal” time.  Are you trying to make the extended TL something of the form “Cambrian 1000/1/1” wihch would be different from “Permian 1000/1/1”.  I’m not sure that makes sense to me, but perhaps the idea of different parallel time streams could be implemented…

kaddar:

07-07-2006 23:51:53 UTC

against

Greth:

08-07-2006 01:15:05 UTC

against