Sunday, January 09, 2011

Proposal: Lets try that agian

sked—Clucky

Adminned at 11 Jan 2011 10:12:21 UTC

Create a new rule called “Food”. Give it the following text:

Each ant and creature has a positive integer amount of food which, unless otherwise specified, may not exceed 5. At any time an ant may subtract a positive integer from their food, provided it doesn’t make the value negative, and add that same interger to the queen’s food. The queen has no limit to the amount of food she can have.

If the proposal ” Kiss My Gaster” passes, instead give it the following text

Each ant and creature has an amount of food which is tracked in the GNDT and which, unless otherwise specified, may not exceed 5. Provided that they are underground, an ant may at any time subtract a positive integer from their food and add that same interger to the queen’s food. The queen has no limit to the amount of food she can have.

Create a new rule called “Winter”. Give it the following text:

If on February 13th, 2011 if at 0:00:00 the queen has less than 1,000 food all dynastic rules are repelled and the game enters a meta-dynasty (The current Sandbox Master loses the title of Sandbox Master and new dynasty continues until a new Sandbox Master is appointed)

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

09-01-2011 18:08:24 UTC

If this and Kiss My Gaster both pass, won’t there be two rules entitled Food with the exact same text?

Bucky:

09-01-2011 19:04:35 UTC

imperial

Winner:

09-01-2011 19:06:12 UTC

Um, I think it replaces it completely and gives it that text…
Instead isn’t defined in the glossary and the dictionary definition might be N/A.

Winner:

09-01-2011 19:06:32 UTC

imperial

Josh: Observer he/they

09-01-2011 19:09:55 UTC

I don’t think it does replace it. This proposal creates a rule entitled “food” either way, but replicates the Gaster text if Gaster passes.

I’m still going to go for but the redundant version should probably be removed.

Clucky: he/him

09-01-2011 19:23:18 UTC

Oops. I read the gasket rule as only modifying Food, not adding it in the failure case.

Either way we can interpret “instead” to encompase the create clause as well. =)

Josh: Observer he/they

09-01-2011 19:57:21 UTC

“instead give it the text” means that it’s fairly unambiguous, I suspect, but having two versions probably isn’t the worst thing that could happen.

Aside: I’m also not too hot on the wording “The current Sandbox Master loses the title of Sandbox Master and new dynasty continues until a new Sandbox Master is appointed” - is losing the title the same as losing the position? And is an Emperor ever “appointed”? But I think these can be fixed nearer the time.

Kevan: he/him

09-01-2011 21:25:13 UTC

against For the double rule and the metadynasty clause (which is a bit vague, has an effect which outlives its own rule being repealed, and seems like a temptingly big and red “if you aren’t likely to win the dynasty but have the power to end it, you may as well end it” button).

macgeorge:

09-01-2011 21:39:09 UTC

against per Kevan

Clucky: he/him

09-01-2011 22:07:11 UTC

Kevan—the goal of the dynasty is to make people work together towards a common goal. It isn’t supposed to be “If you aren’t gonna win try and stop someone else from winning”

iqforu:

09-01-2011 22:09:59 UTC

imperial

Darknight: he/him

10-01-2011 00:23:06 UTC

imperial

Purplebeard:

10-01-2011 08:07:34 UTC

against I’d rather we flesh out some game mechanics before we add a win condition (or in this case, lose condition).

Roujo: he/him

10-01-2011 14:59:15 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

10-01-2011 16:01:09 UTC

[Clucky] If you include a mechanic that suddenly ends the game, then players can choose to adopt “end the game” as their goal (or, at least, as their backup strategy). Carrots are better than sticks if you want people to work together.

Klisz:

10-01-2011 16:16:52 UTC

against because of the poorly-worded metadynasty clause (it reads to me that the Sixth Metadynasty would be just an extension of the Fourth Dynasty of Clucky from a glance).

Blacky:

10-01-2011 19:22:38 UTC

against

Klisz:

10-01-2011 22:10:46 UTC

Clucky: True, but people will try to play that way anyway. Only one person can win, after all.

Clucky: he/him

11-01-2011 18:11:54 UTC

against so I don’t have to count the vote total