Friday, June 04, 2010

Proposal: Haven’t I seen that before?

Vetoed procedurally -Darth

Adminned at 04 Jun 2010 15:58:04 UTC

Add a dynastic rule entitled, “Teamwork”, containing the following:

A group of Voters may collaborate to form a political party.

In order to form a Gang, a @ must make a post detailing the name of the Gang and the names of the specific @s they would like to invite to it. Those @s named in the post may indicate their agreement to form the Gang in the comments to that post. Once all named @s have indicated their agreement in this manner, the Gang is formed and all of the named @s, plus the @ who initiated the original post, are affiliated with it.

Each @’s Gang affiliation is tracked in the GNDT under “Affiliation”. Each @ may be affiliated with no more than 1 Gang. A @ may voluntarily cease to be affiliated to a party, by blanking their GNDT value for “Affiliation”, at any time.

If a @ wishes to join an existing Gang then they may make a post to that effect. Such a post must have the phrase “Petitioning for Membership:” and the name of the Gang they wish to join in the title. If a quorum of the @ affiliated with that Gang indicate assent in the comments to that post then the petitioning @ becomes affiliated with that Gang.

I literally copied and pasted the first part of the political party proposal from a couple dynasties ago.  I also changed all of the “affliated” to “affiliated”.

Comments

Hix:

04-06-2010 21:42:53 UTC

against I usually don’t mind foundational rules, meant to be expanded upon later, but what do the Gangs let us do?  Is this really going to make future rule-writing easier?

lilomar:

04-06-2010 21:47:32 UTC

against
per Hix, also, uses “Gang” and “political party” in two different places to mean the same thing.

Freezerbird:

04-06-2010 21:50:22 UTC

Ditto, I’m not sure where this proposal is going? What’s the aim of it?

Klisz:

04-06-2010 22:17:24 UTC

against Doesn’t seem NetHack-related. (The dynasty that this came from was directly based on politics.)

scshunt:

04-06-2010 22:17:30 UTC

against

Jumblin McGrumblin:

04-06-2010 22:22:41 UTC

I meant for the rule to be not a what-can-gangs-do-what-can’t-they-do sort of thing, but as a way to for a group to get together and combat monsters, other @‘s, work together, etc.  I wasn’t trying to make it so that Gang’s could have special abilities or all could fight one monster or something like that.

And yes, I missed a couple of words when I was modifying the original proposal.  I am not the best proofreader.

Klisz:

04-06-2010 22:24:48 UTC

Hmm. I like the idea, but lilomar’s point seems to be a fatal flaw. If you would like a procedural veto, just ask.

Jumblin McGrumblin:

04-06-2010 22:40:48 UTC

against Yes, please do the veto.  I think I’ll wait a good 15 minutes after I finish future proposals so I won’t skip over the obvious.

Klisz:

04-06-2010 22:56:19 UTC

veto procedural