Friday, February 13, 2009

Proposal: Loyalty Redux

Despite various errors in spelling made in the appropriate paperwork (and clearly incorrect regional spelling variation), High Command accepts that mistakes are made and that this Proposal is acceptable for the fighting force; as a measurement and NOT a suggestion that lock of Loyalty is anything but unacceptable. Concerns about Loyalty instability within the ranks are ongoing.

Reporting, Devenger.

(Passed from 12 hours plus quorum, at 12-0.)

Adminned at 14 Feb 2009 13:50:15 UTC

Create a new Dynastic rule “Loyalty” with the text:

Each Soldier has a numeric statistic Loyalty that is tracked in the GNDT, and can be any positive of negative whole number.  The default for this statistic is 0.  If a Soldier has a Loyalty over 50 that Soldier is said to be an “Ideal Soldier” or “Mindless Drone”.  If a Soldier has a Loyalty of under -50 that Soldier is said to be a “Free Thinker” or “Disruptive Influece”.  If a Soldier’s Loyatly is between -50 and 50 inclusive that Soldier is said to be “Undecided”.

Add a new sub-rule to Loyalty “Honorable Combat” with the text:

If a Soldier Withdraws from a Skirmish and is not Dead, that Soldier’s Loyalty is decreased by 10.

Comments

ais523:

13-02-2009 18:26:53 UTC

Should be “positive or negative”, but that can be fixed when adminning the proposal as an obvious typo. for

Devenger:

13-02-2009 18:48:01 UTC

for positive OR negative, InflueNce, LoyaLTy, ... HonoUrable…

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2009 19:30:29 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

13-02-2009 19:36:23 UTC

for Honorable is an alternative spelling so it technically isn’t incorrect. Even if I do prefer honourable.

Klisz:

13-02-2009 19:52:47 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

13-02-2009 20:15:43 UTC

Wow, it’s like GB has invaded Blognomic. Keep it honorable.

for

Sparrow:

13-02-2009 22:35:50 UTC

for Honorable

Rodlen:

13-02-2009 23:54:11 UTC

for

Sparrow:

14-02-2009 00:58:37 UTC

‘any positive or negative whole number’...

Looks like another one that will need to be patched to allow 0. Heh.

Darknight: he/him

14-02-2009 04:32:02 UTC

for

Igthorn:

14-02-2009 08:59:50 UTC

for

ais523:

14-02-2009 13:11:47 UTC

@Sparrow: you’re right. And that’s insane. How could we make the same mistake twice?

Sparrow:

14-02-2009 13:13:24 UTC

Even though it’s technically wrong, everyone understands what it meant.

Sparrow:

14-02-2009 13:14:59 UTC

It’s more like a typo or errata than anything else. I don’t think a separate proposal should be needed to fix it.

Wooden Squid:

14-02-2009 20:26:50 UTC

for