Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Proposal: Fuel Cap

Adminned at 22 Jun 2012 17:12:56 UTC

To Rule 2.3 “Fuel”, add:

A Worker cannot have more than 25 Quota. If any Worker has more than 25 Quota, that Worker’s Quota is reduced to 25.

 

Timed Out. Passes 7 to 3—Clucky

Comments

Henri:

20-06-2012 21:32:58 UTC

You have to make this post a “Proposal” post. To do that you have to go to the “categories” section and select proposal.

Henri:

20-06-2012 21:33:21 UTC

oh, nevermind.

Spice:

20-06-2012 21:44:44 UTC

against This prevents you from adding 5 when you have 21 or more.

Henri:

20-06-2012 21:50:17 UTC

against Why do we need to limit the fuel? If someone refuels everyday and does not use it, he or she deserves to use it at another time.

Clucky: he/him

20-06-2012 22:19:50 UTC

against Spice’s complaint is a good one. Remove the first sentence and its fine though.

@Henri the issue is that we want to encourage gameplay, not stockpiling fuel. Stockpiling fuel creates a rift between new players and old players.

Henri:

20-06-2012 22:28:56 UTC

I see, good point. To resolve the issue Spice stated, we could make the rule state that a when a player with 21 fuel refuels, he or she receives 4, and when a player with 22 fuel refuels, he or she receives 3 and so on.

Clucky: he/him

20-06-2012 22:36:04 UTC

Which is exactly what “If any Worker has more than 25 Quota, that Worker’s Quota is reduced to 25.” accomplishes. The “cannot have more than 25” is simply redudant with this, and makes any action which sets your fuel above 25 illegal.

Josh: Observer he/they

21-06-2012 06:46:18 UTC

I think this is technically illegal, as it looks like Henri posted a comment before moonroof changed the category to Proposal.

In any case,  against

BobTHJ:

21-06-2012 07:31:48 UTC

imperial

quirck: he/him

21-06-2012 08:38:52 UTC

If you have 21, then you’re encouraged to spend 2 before adding 5. Why do you need extra 5 Quota if you don’t spend it? :)

Clucky: he/him

21-06-2012 18:13:42 UTC

COV for

would rather get the cap in place, and have to fix it, then wait around for it not to get in place until its too late.

Kevan: he/him

21-06-2012 18:26:28 UTC

I think all the retroactive claiming for earlier days is illegal, since “If a Time Buddha fails to perform this action during a day, then they may perform it an extra time during any of the following three days.” is in the present tense and the rule only enacted yesterday. We all failed to perform it on the 18th and 19th, but we didn’t trigger a “may perform” permission at the time, because the rule didn’t exist.

Kevan: he/him

21-06-2012 20:04:13 UTC

Eh, ambiguous on reflection, I’ll just grab 15 myself.

redtara: they/them

21-06-2012 20:05:05 UTC

Josh: It’s probably not illegal as when Henri refreshed (after posting the comment) the category had changed.


against anyway

Henri:

21-06-2012 20:10:48 UTC

Why would it be illegal?

Kevan: he/him

21-06-2012 20:11:11 UTC

for A broken cap is better than no cap.

Kevan: he/him

21-06-2012 20:12:44 UTC

[Henri] “If no Time Buddha has commented on it, an official post may be altered or removed by its author; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.” - once a comment has been made, the post can’t be changed.

Henri:

21-06-2012 20:14:54 UTC

Is changing the category illegal? I thought it was only illegal if they changed the body of the post. Should we clear that rule up?

Kevan: he/him

21-06-2012 20:30:18 UTC

Oh, actually we have a more specific paragraph about it, in the same rule: “A non-official post may not, through editing of the blog or otherwise, be changed into an official post, with the following exception: Whilst a non-official post has been posted for less than fifteen minutes and has no comments, the author may change the categories as they wish.”

Henri:

21-06-2012 20:32:02 UTC

Oh, I should have read that.

Spice:

21-06-2012 21:36:47 UTC

for CoV.

scshunt:

22-06-2012 01:53:59 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

22-06-2012 11:35:04 UTC

for