Friday, December 16, 2005

Proposal: Grue Tag!!!!!! (draft III)

4-4, smith explicitly abstaining, timed out. Failed by Elias IX.

Adminned at 18 Dec 2005 16:44:23 UTC

Righto, let’s try this again:

Add a new rule entitled “Slaying” that reads:

A protagonist (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as “the first chap”) is slain when another protagonist takes an action that reduces the HP of the first chap to zero.

A protagonist (Hereafter in this rule referred to as the slayer), by entering the command “slay X” where X is the name of another protagonist (Hereafter in this rule referred to as the slayed) with the same location as the slayer reduces the slayed’s HP to zero. The result following this action must be a gratuitious description of how the slayed was killed within the narrative. If the narrator does not find the result gratuitous enough, e may comment on the thread containing the offending result with text containing the word “dork”, causing the slayer’s head to explode, spattering gray matter over the ceiling, and the slayer’s HP to be reset to zero and the slayer’s location to be reset to “The Ruins of the Fortress of Cheese”.

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the text “Your slaying stuff is poop”, omit all text above this paragraph when administrating this Proposal. Just put this stuff in to get some action going as quickly as possible, what “slaying” is will probably be changed rather soon. If there is no rule entitled “Health”, omit all text above this paragraphwhen administrating this proposal.

Add a new rule entitled “Grue Tag” that reads as follows:

When a protagonist who’s role is “Grue” (Hereafter in this rule referred to as the “Monster”) is slain by a protagonist who’s role is not “Grue” (hereafter in this rule referred to as the “Slayer”), the Slayer’s role becomes “Grue” and the Monster’s role becomes “Unemployed”.

Add a new subsection entitled “unemployed” to the rule “characters” that reads as follows:

The unemployed protagonist is doomed to sit on a park bench until e has found a job. When a protagonist becomes “unemployed” eir location field is changed to “The Ruins of the Fortress of Cheese”. Eir location field may not change from “The Ruins of the Fortress of Cheese” as long as eir role field remains “unemployed”.

In the subsection “The Ruins of the Fortress of Cheese”, change the text:

A rotting heap of what was, undoubtedly, once some of the finest and awesomest cheese. At the center, the outline of a room, walled with “$$$$“s, is visible underneath a pile of rotting camembert.

so that it reads:

A rotting heap of what was, undoubtedly, once some of the finest and awesomest cheese. At the center, the outline of a room, walled with “$$$$“s, is visible underneath a pile of rotting camembert. Upon the peak of a mound of Gorgonzola is a park bench, where Y (is/are) reading a newspaper and munching Ritz Bits crackers.”

Where Y is a list of unemployed protagonists. The use of “is” or “are” in the context “where X (is/are) reading a newspaper” is entirely up to the creative whims of any admin.

Comments

Cayvie:

16-12-2005 19:58:31 UTC

for  Your slaying stuff is poop

Angry Grasshopper:

16-12-2005 20:16:20 UTC

against

Your slaying stuff is poop.

Actually, I think that the idea is good, but there’s no point in introducing the mechanic while everybody is stuck in one location. I’d vote on something like this after we had some room to move, and perhaps some other game mechanics to make things interesting.

AgentHH:

16-12-2005 20:40:40 UTC

I like this, but we’ll be needing more locations. I’ve got some interesting ideas for that kind of stuff already. I do want the grue however to not be able to function in areas with light, soo.. I don’t think I can vote yes for this.

“Your slaying stuff is poop”

against

danopato:

16-12-2005 21:08:33 UTC

Your slaying stuff is poop for

notafraud:

16-12-2005 21:51:31 UTC

Is a vote for the self automatic, or do I have to put a forfor btw.

Angry Grasshopper:

16-12-2005 22:23:08 UTC

As the rules stand, if you propose it, your vote is assumed to be ‘for’. If you vote against, it kills your proposal—note that that is irrevocable.

Elias IX:

16-12-2005 22:46:56 UTC

for Your slaying stuff is poop.

Saurik:

17-12-2005 00:09:32 UTC

I vote against as this Proposal doesn’t define a Rule for how to handle the replacement effect on the Y in the description of The Ruins of the Fortress of Cheese. If that’s supposed to be an ongoing effect, which updates whenever the list of Unemployed Protagonists updates, it needs to be backed up by some wording to that effect. The “change the text” only happens once when this Proposal is enacted.

Saurik:

17-12-2005 00:10:04 UTC

Oh, and again, against votes are “counted”, right? Your slaying stuff is poop.

notafraud:

17-12-2005 04:03:22 UTC

i’m confused. what do you mean votes are “counted”?

Saurik:

17-12-2005 05:04:17 UTC

If you mean me, then I am indirectly asking if my saying “Your slaying stuff is poop.” is still valid/important even if I voted against the Proposal. I believe it is, but the word “counted” isn’t used very often or very explicitely in the Laws on voting.

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

17-12-2005 07:33:49 UTC

It is supposed to be, yes.

“If there exists more than one Vote from a single Protagonist on a single Proposal, only the most recent of those Votes is counted.”

The word “counted” is used exactly twice more in the Ruleset, and neither time does it conflict with this usage or ambiguate it.  Seems pretty solid to me.

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

17-12-2005 07:34:41 UTC

Oh, well, but of course it doesn’t specify votes as “counted” earlier.  But this is a normal English usage situation, I believe.

notafraud:

17-12-2005 07:38:15 UTC

Yeah, I think it is counted… err… considered because it’s a considered voter, err something.

Salamander:

18-12-2005 13:09:02 UTC

against these are getting much better :”) I really like the bench

notafraud:

18-12-2005 22:05:31 UTC

It looks like this isn’t going to pass. I’ll reword it and put it out again once we’ve got locations and a way of “slaying” eachother. Advice on rewording would be helpful.

smith:

18-12-2005 23:55:26 UTC

imperial