Monday, March 20, 2017

Proposal: Just in case Cuddlebeam unidles and gets an accomplice

Reached quorum 8-0. Enacted by card.

Adminned at 22 Mar 2017 00:59:28 UTC

Add the following to the “Moods” rule:

An Organ may only take nutrients as a result of fulfilling moods twice per day.

posted by Oracular rufio at 20 Mar 2017 23:56:00 UTC Comments (16)

Comments

derrick: he/him

21-03-2017 00:07:21 UTC

This may actually be sound just from a turn size perspective. I’d prefer the limit to be four total rather than two fulfills,  but that’s minor.

pokes:

21-03-2017 00:11:31 UTC

I’d also like four but am willing to vote for two.

Oracular rufio:

21-03-2017 00:11:37 UTC

Well, in the event that there is a Cuddlebeam accomplice, they can each fulfill moods that many times, so this is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 nutrients they could take versus 4 x 2 x 2 = 16.  We can only hold four nutrients anyway, and we get three per day for free.

card:

21-03-2017 00:12:17 UTC

Tha can be proposed later on.  for

pokes:

21-03-2017 00:16:01 UTC

for

derrick: he/him

21-03-2017 00:31:59 UTC

for

Madrid:

21-03-2017 01:47:06 UTC

A lot of the game has turned into trying to counteract what I could do, or what I’ve pointed out lol (even being idle!! what is this power?! lol)

pokes:

21-03-2017 01:52:24 UTC

A lot of the game has turned into trying to counteract what you could do in the same way that cities with more crime tend to allocate more of their budget to police.

Madrid:

21-03-2017 01:57:43 UTC

Downtown they know me as “that criminal that tips his own crimes”

card:

21-03-2017 02:29:26 UTC

Don’t get a swelled head there.

Kevan: Yard he/him

21-03-2017 07:57:03 UTC

for

Viv:

21-03-2017 10:40:17 UTC

for

Viv:

21-03-2017 10:43:05 UTC

I’m taking this one as in good spirits, then.

Madrid:

21-03-2017 10:55:02 UTC

The title does have that thing but the rule content isn’t targetting me specifically. I wouldn’t say its too bad.

Matt:

21-03-2017 15:02:47 UTC

for

orkboi:

21-03-2017 16:00:46 UTC

I think three is a better number, but yes.  for