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 “Affiliationâ€. 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 “Affiliationâ€, 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”.
Hix:
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?