Saturday, April 03, 2010

Proposal: I Never Met A Rogue I Didn’t Like

Self-killed. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 04 Apr 2010 05:49:55 UTC

Remove all Colonists from the Settlement.

Reword the rule “The Settlement” to:-

The map of the Settlement is located here. Each Location is Designated by a number followed by a letter, and Represented by one ASCII character. The legend below the map denotes what each ASCII character represents. Locations that are denoted as Empty Space in the legend are Empty; all other Locations are Occupied.

Each Colonist has a Location on the Settlement Map, represented with an “@” symbol. If a row on the Map has any @ symbols, the identity of the Colonists those symbols represent must be listed (in order from left to right) to the right of that row on the Map.

New Colonists start at 13a if it is empty, otherwise they start in the empty location closest to 13a. (If more than one location is equally close to 13a, the tie is resolved at the decision of whoever is setting the Colonist’s location.)

Add “@ Colonist” to the legend of the Settlement Map.

Remove the “Empty” and “Occupied” subsections of the Legend, rename “Bridge” to “Bridge Wall” and remove all Bridge Wall sections in column “a”.

In an order of the enacting Admin’s choosing, each Colonist shall be placed as if they were a new Colonist.

If “Energy and movement” passed, replace “A Colonist in a Bed may set his Energy to 150 instead of 100 when resting.” with “A Colonist adjacent to a Bed may set his Energy to 150 instead of 100 when resting.”

Maybe it’s just a lifetime of Nethack, but it seems a bit strange not to have players showing up on the map, and a little elaborate to have to comb through the GNDT and translate location variables, to work out where people actually are.



03-04-2010 16:32:40 UTC

This confuses me a bit, why rename Bridge to Bridge Wall?  Also, it doesn’t make sense for being adjacent to a bed to allow you to rest, do you suddenly become rested standing next to your bed? Furthermore, I feel like Colonists should be allowed to occupy the same space, and placing an icon for them on the map would break that unless there was a backup in the GNDT, which essentially makes the icon useless.


Kevan: City he/him

03-04-2010 16:36:05 UTC

Bridge becomes Bridge Wall because this proposal gets rid of “Empty” floor spaces like the Bridge (so that we don’t have to somehow remember there was a bridge square there, when someone steps onto it) - rather than three columns you can walk over, the bridge becomes two columns you have to walk between. The bed adjacency is the same thing - if you had to move onto the bed and change the “b” to an “@”, we’d have to remember to change it back to a bed when you got up.


03-04-2010 16:41:45 UTC

Ah, okay. Now I understand what you are trying to do, but it still doesn’t fix the problem that the first rule never says colonists are not allowed on the same square, and incidentally neither does this one, so there would need to be another fix in order to clarify this either way (Regarding if colonists can occupy the same square).

Kevan: City he/him

03-04-2010 16:45:19 UTC

This proposal would make it so that only the Empty Space locations (indicated with a “.”) were empty. Locations with Colonists in would no longer treated as Empty, so you couldn’t start the game in the same square as a Colonist, nor could you move to one.

Josh: he/they

03-04-2010 17:36:42 UTC


redtara: they/them

03-04-2010 18:55:54 UTC


Darknight: he/him

03-04-2010 21:00:38 UTC



03-04-2010 22:42:27 UTC



03-04-2010 22:56:34 UTC

“remove all Bridge Wall sections in column “a”.” Did you mean “replace them with ‘.’”? Removing a section in a column is not defined yet.

I am also confused at the starting points. Not more than one player is allowed to occupy the same location. Ok. And “In an order of the enacting Admin’s choosing, each Colonist shall be placed as if they were a new Colonist.” means the first one (who is the first one? ais because of an alphabetically order? And then all other Colonists are located in a circle around him?

Hm, this would be unfair for the Colonists, who were located on the map first, because they will not be able to move really.

I really like the idea of putting “@“s to the map, but I assume, this needs lots of fixing. As (I assume) there are problems with enacting this Proposal:  against


03-04-2010 23:53:27 UTC

against Same argument as Keba.


04-04-2010 01:58:10 UTC

imperial for now


04-04-2010 05:20:10 UTC

against Not valid until I’ve unidled

See my post at for my reasoning


04-04-2010 08:28:22 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

04-04-2010 11:11:13 UTC

against Self-kill per Tiberias’s solution.