Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Proposal: Imperial Purge

Times out 3-5. Failed by Angry Grasshopper.

Adminned at 29 Apr 2006 00:22:07 UTC

I sense the true reason for the inactiveness may be that the power of the Abbot dwarfs the powers of the Monks to the point that anything the monks might do is rendered irrelevant. Thus, the inactivity.

Remove “And Movement Rule” from rule 2.9

Remove “For the purposes of adding, editing, or removing ciphertext, the Abbot may alter this rule at any time, provided that e gives notice on the front page that an alteration has been made.”

Delete rule 2.10.4, if it exists, and undo the changes done by it.

This is not meant as a personal attack on AG or anyone else for that matter. But abusing the cipher rule to change the ruleset in a manner very simular to a failed proposal is one step too far.

posted by Rodney at 26 Apr 2006 01:49:08 UTC Comments (11)

Comments

Angry Grasshopper:

26-04-2006 02:17:38 UTC

Finally a little bit of action around here.

I’m not sure that the reason for the general inactivity is due to such disparities in the ruleset. Several (compelling) reasons were listed in a previous thread, most of which cited lack of stimulus on my part. I had decided that things being rather sluggish around here that I should provide such a stimulus. Waiting for forty-eight hours for each proposal to time out before making changes or not seemed to kill any sense of continuity that I thought I had.

I had wanted to do a little story-telling this game—if we decide to continue that, how best would you recommend we pursue it in light of your proposed changes?

Rodney:

26-04-2006 03:04:38 UTC

I think what we need is more “Tourist” like elements, where rather than saying “The Cockatrice jumps foward and turns Hix to stone”, have a Cockatrice on the map that can jump forward and act it out. Then, for example, another player could zap said Cockatrice with a wand of teleportation and thus alter the plot. Some action may help as well, such as viking raids or whatnot.

Bucky:

26-04-2006 03:27:21 UTC

against
Just as long as you don’t abuse it.
The cyphered rules were probably a bad idea to begin with, though.

Bucky:

26-04-2006 03:30:04 UTC

Actually, Cov,  for .  I think we should replace this with a >Query-like system where we decide what AG can change.

Hix:

26-04-2006 14:46:15 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

27-04-2006 04:20:33 UTC

Any other of our active players care enough to vote one way or the other on this?

Thelonious:

27-04-2006 07:43:23 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

27-04-2006 12:59:30 UTC

imperial

smith:

27-04-2006 19:32:48 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

27-04-2006 23:41:51 UTC

I like your ideas—the ones in the commentary especially—but I do not see how this change is going to alleviate the sluggishness we’ve been in as of late.

against

If you had raised the point on a philosophical level, I won’t argue against, for I believe I already understand your position. If it was the addition of the location effects, speak up and I’ll revert it.

I do intend to change the ruleset further if the pace does not change, and eventually bring the action to mid/end game. I’ll consider the proposal to be a fair warning to keep a light hand. 

If you want to discuss the matter further, send me an e-mail, meet me in IRC, or make comments on the front page. A debate on the philosophy of Nomic might be neat, and would be a first time experience for me.

Elias IX:

29-04-2006 01:44:40 UTC

While this votes does nothing now,  for