Let’s say there are 5 Zones. Each zone represents 14.4 (fourteen) floors. The first Zone represents floors B8~B1, as well as 1~6 [following Kevan’s original numbering]. The second Zone represents… either floors 7~20 or 8~21, depending on how fractional floors are rounded.

The proposal says “rounded down”

how about we make it just full-size rules, & subrules count as a part of their parents’ zone? that gives us an intuitive option if we want some rules text to exist w/o taking up a zone

so 7~20?
that puts the electrical failure on the top floor(s)

Mm, I dunno. I kinda want to get to a granular place with Zones, so you’re having to make really advised choices about which Zones to edit or add to get to the floor you want, and making it just parent rules feels like it’ll stay very broad. Open to opinions on that that?

@utina Yeah, I guess my expectation is that getting to floor 64 will have something to do with victory at some point, so you’ll want to maintain a ruleset with 1,2,3,6,8,9,12,24,36, or 72 rules in it

why not have a bigger tower, such as one with 12,252,240 floors, which can handle any amount of rules up to 18, any even amount of rules up to 30, and any multiple of 3 amount of rules up to 51.

[joke suggestion, or maybe not!?]

handle* without any electrical failures

How would we expect these calculations to be done during voting, in practice, as soon as Floors became important? That every proposal would get an early “heads up, if this passed then Tuttle would be able to move to Floors 23-28 or 45-49” comment from whoever volunteered to work it out?

^ the implicit floor travel mechanic is my biggest concern with it too. the amount of forward-calculation required, taking into account every proposal on the list… it seems a bit extreme!! especially because u could have a proposal passed that lets u move to zone X, and then have 2 more proposals passed that *change* where zone X is, and *then* u move to zone X ‘cause u’ve got a 24-hour window.
i’d be alright with the proposal w/o that clause, i think, but not with it

Sure - have stripped that out pending further thought

This is interesting but its going to be a headache to track

This is extreme headache. This may be fun, if the powering up/down mechanics will lead to some rules activating or deactivating, but if it leads to floor travel is umm.

Will vote no at current state.

personally the floor markers section makes this very tolerable for me!! we won’t have to each be calculating this ourselves every time, y’all

It seems interesting, but I’ll get a feel for how everyone is voting first.

When there are floor gaps, how are they allocated? Should Zones be contiguous?

oop, voting’s open. 

@pokes I’m not sure how there would be floor gaps?

I like the basic concept but there’s some development needed before I’d vote for something which could affect the scope of rules so broadly.

I believe that floors could have effects without having to be tied to the rulestate. I honestly believe we can just have floors do something without having them be an intricate part of the rulest.

:D

@Josh, take utina’s example, with 5 zones. The first is B8 through 6, but where’s the next. 7 to 20? Why not 8 to 21? I think it’s ambiguous.

I don’t think there a justification for anything other than it being 7-20, given “The 72 Floors are represented from the bottom of the dynastic ruleset up”, but I’d also argue that that’s very much a pass-and-fix issue, given that a few subsequent proposals now depend on this passing.

I’m a fan of the idea of rules having different effects depending on each person’s gamestate, but I think this way of doing it would be too much of a headache to keep track of

as josh said, why not pass and fix? atm this rule doesn’t actually *do* anything, it’s just framework. u don’t need to nitpick a framework when u can just fix it instead!

Actually, it could be fun to make people keep track of how everything will shift, and lemon’s idea of freely being able to move rules to specific places gets rid of a lot of my worries, so changing my vote to

I’ll go with the majority on the general idea here.

eeeeeh

the concept is cool but the execution…

have reservations about execution.

@Cuddlebeam @Chiiika: “If the Drone has voted DEFERENTIAL on a Proposal…. votes of DEFERENTIAL made by other Citizens on the same Proposal are not considered to be valid. “

No worries, just a signal that I have not really made a choice. If it turns out to be invalid, okay.

CoV for the sake of the queue (fellow admins, forgive me for not enacting but I would like to ease back in to my admin responsibilities…)