Friday, December 26, 2008

Proposal: [MIC] Starting diplomacy with GNO


Adminned at 28 Dec 2008 12:49:18 UTC

Add a new rule “Diplomacy”

WHEREAS the chairman is the most wise among us;
WHEREAS the Supreme Being is the most wise among the GNO;
THEREFORE we must share our wisdom.

Any subrules of this rule have no effect unless they also exist in another factions ruleset.

Add a subrule of diplomacy - “A leader’s vote between GNO and MIC”

The Chairman of MIC and the Supreme Being of GNO have a vote in GNO proposals and MIC proposals respectively. They may be referred to as ambassadors but only in the context of them voting in the other faction (the GNO faction for the Chairman and the MIC faction for the Supreme Being). Ambassadors are not considered idle in the other faction for the purposes of voting only.

Since they are considered idle for everything else, they can’t be affected by rules saying things like “The ambassador stops being the chairman” or similar things but if something stops them voting, since it’s the vote which becomes illegal, it probably applies to them. For any people in GNO reading this, could you propose the same rule for your faction?



26-12-2008 11:11:08 UTC

so… “the supreme being can veto proposals”

on the one hand, this shouldn’t matter, as rules from one faction don’t affect another’s gamestate.  but if you’re allowing the supreme being to vote on your proposals, which don’t exist anyway…

SingularByte: he/him

26-12-2008 11:24:35 UTC

The veto isn’t mentioned in the MIC rules, just the GNO rules. Just because the supreme being can vote, it doesn’t instantly make all GNO rules apply, or even the rules just related to voting.

Amnistar: he/him

26-12-2008 12:17:30 UTC

against  In favor of the Fix, you can self kill this Singular.

SingularByte: he/him

26-12-2008 13:34:45 UTC

What fix?


26-12-2008 17:26:56 UTC

I’m not happy with the phrase “Ambassadors are not considered idle in the other faction for the purposes of voting only.”  It’s the combination of the “not” and the “only”, it leaves me unsure as to what this actually means.  against as I’d prefer a better phrasing.


27-12-2008 03:09:14 UTC

for I agree with SingularByte’s interpretation of what the Supreme Being can do.

SingularByte: he/him

27-12-2008 13:53:28 UTC

WHEREAS the GNO faction wants “Imperial diplomacy”;
WHEREAS no counterpart to this proposal has been proposed;
THEREFORE I self kill and ask the Viziers to veto this to take this out of my proposal queue.


27-12-2008 16:04:38 UTC

1)For most of the last week, this proposal has been failing
2)Thanks to SHHH, you don’t actually know whether or not we’ve proposed any counterpart.

SingularByte: he/him

27-12-2008 17:37:56 UTC

Only one rule has been proposed after mine which is encrypted (ignoring any made after I self killed). That one rule will still be encrypted when it enters your rules so there’d be no way of checking that they’re the same. And about the proposal already on the way to failing; if it’s going to fail I might as well propose something else instead of waiting 16 hours for it to fail (assuming it gets vetoed before it fails).


27-12-2008 18:33:20 UTC

I cannot veto anything until the Vizier of Propaganda declares it Disloyal.