Thursday, January 12, 2012

Proposal: It’s not the mob… II

Self-killed -Klisz

Adminned at 13 Jan 2012 22:03:17 UTC

Create a rule “Families”, reading:

Any criminal may belong to a Family, which is tracked in the GNDT. A Criminal who has no Family may set their Family at any time, to any valid English phrase.

At any time, a Criminal may transfer any amount of Wealth or Firepower to another Criminal in the same Family as them, unless that would result in either of those two Criminals having negative Wealth or Firepower.

From rule 3.3.1:
“Unless otherwise specified, a rule that allows Criminals to transfer a numeric value only allows them to transfer that value from themselves to another Criminal (of their choice unless otherwise stated).” Thanks Koen.



01-12-2012 23:22:45 UTC


Clucky: HE/HIM

01-13-2012 00:48:22 UTC


I dislike how there isn’t any control over who is in your family. Someone can come in and take all your resources. Of course, they can’t leave but they can still mess with you. I guess proposals to kick people out of famlies could be added later, but i’m still not sold on the way the resource transfering is done.


01-13-2012 00:54:15 UTC

Clucky: you can only transfer from yourself, to someone else. See the flavour text.

Random nitpicking: as of now there is only one Don, so aren’t families a bit out of theme?

Also why bother with “valid English phrases”? “strings” would be way more simple;
With valid english phrases, if a Criminal sets their family to “The family that killed both of Dirty Harry and Vito Corleone”, someone might argue that Corleone is not a valid English word.

for but would like a fix about strings.

Clucky: HE/HIM

01-13-2012 01:12:23 UTC

I can join your family and transfer -500 Wealth from myself to you. (Unless you argue that because “Wealth” is an “non-negative integral statistic” that -500 is not a ‘amount’ of wealth and so cannot be transfered)


01-13-2012 01:27:54 UTC

Corleone is a proper name, thus a valid English word.

As for Clucky,  against, S-K, and you could as well have pointed that the first time around.


01-13-2012 01:29:05 UTC

BTW, I’m not reproposing this. If someone else wants it, be my guest.


01-13-2012 01:30:51 UTC

I would argue so, but I’d also wish I had done something beforehand to avoid that situation. Good catch.