Friday, July 13, 2012

Proposal: Merit

Timed out. Pass 4-1—Clucky

Adminned at 15 Jul 2012 21:25:29 UTC

Add a sub-rule to “Reputation” called “Merit” with the following text:

Each Worker has a number of Merits, tracked in the GNDT, and defaulting to zero. Each time a Worker causes a machine to become Repaired, that Worker gains 1 Merit. Any Worker with 10 or more Merits can lose 10 Merits to gain 1 Reputation.



13-07-2012 23:01:17 UTC

for I like this. Might even want to see it lowered to ~5. Hell, even 2.

Josh: he/they

13-07-2012 23:01:32 UTC



13-07-2012 23:02:40 UTC

I thought 10 would be a safe place to start.


13-07-2012 23:03:12 UTC

Just realized the language of “causes” *might* need to be clarified. In particular I think the gaining of merit should be a part of the “Power Linking” rule so that, e.g., activating “Removing StickyBomb” doesn’t grant merit.

No CoV since 10 is so high it probably won’t matter soon anyway, but would like to see a followup.


13-07-2012 23:04:47 UTC

^ Machine Repair* not Power Linking

Kevan: City he/him

13-07-2012 23:15:20 UTC


Clucky: he/him

13-07-2012 23:28:25 UTC


I like the idea, but I think it needs improvement. I would argue by this wording, if you put a link between A and B, but I remove the link and make B repaired before you get a chance to, then I “caused” B to become repair and get the reputation, which results in encouraging of poaching.

Something like “Whenever a machine becomes repaired in this manor, the worker who established the power link gains 1 reputation” would work and I’d vote for that.


13-07-2012 23:34:25 UTC

Clucky: In theory yes, but in practice, the power link creator will immediately fix the machine. You’d have to be fiercely hawking the GNDT in order to poach like that.

In any case, I’d recommend you (or anyone) make a followup proposal in the near future (I’m at my limit), and possibly consider changing the value to something less than 10 as well.

Clucky: he/him

13-07-2012 23:36:14 UTC

I think ten is a good value.

This issue isn’t really “I establish a power link from A to B, and then before I can repair B someone else does” its “I establish a network of power links, from B to C, C to D, D to E and E to F. someone else establishes a powerlink from A (repaired) to B, and uses that to power C, D E and F as well”


13-07-2012 23:47:00 UTC

Ah, good point. That said, I think the ultimate fixer should reap the glory partially for logistical reasons (I’m not a fan of tracking the link establishers) and partly because they actually did fix everything.