Monday, March 04, 2013

Proposal: Mining

Fails 1-7 with 1 unresolved DEF. — Quirck

Adminned at 05 Mar 2013 22:34:39 UTC

In the rule “Resources”:
Change the text “A Captain may never gain resources for free, except when explicitly permitted by Rule 2.3.” to read “A Captain may never gain resources for free, except when explicitly allowed by the Ruleset.”

Enact a subrule to “Resources” entitled “Mining”:

Once per week, a Captain may establish a Mine in the Sector in which they are currently located. While Mines can be set up on any sector, each Mine can only mine one type of Resource, and there can only ever be one Mine per Sector. Additionally, Mines can only mine resources that are produced in the Sector they are established. Established Mines will be tracked on a wiki page entitled “Mine”. //If this is passed, this should link to the wiki page. Mines will be tracked by Sector they are located, total number and type of resources they hold, and name of the Captain who established the Mine.

Setting up a Mine:
In order to set up a mine, a Captain must post a story post entitled “Mine: [Sector name]” and establish within the body of the post the resource that will be mined. The process of establishing a mine costs the Captain their jumping ability for the day. (This implies that a Captain who has already jumped, can not establish a mine). Every Captain may only have one established mine at a time.

Upkeep of a Mine:
Upon being established, a mine will contain no resources and is able to hold a maximum of 5 resources. Once every 3 days (and at least 3 days from the establishment of the mine), a Captain may add 1 resource of the type that the mine produces to the total held by the mine (recorded on the wiki page).

Getting Resources:
Once per day, a Captain may take a maximum of 2 resources from a mine that is established in the same sector they are located. If they are the ones who established the mine, they may take all of the resources held. The Captain who takes resources in this way cannot add the resources from a mine to their total without first deducting the number of resources taken from the total resources held by that mine on the wiki page.

Destroying a Mine:
Once per day, a Captain may destroy a mine that is established in the same sector they are located. The process of destroying a mine costs the Captain their jumping ability for the day. (This implies that a Captain who has already jumped, can not destroy a mine).

Another attempt to create a mechanic that will allow people to get resources in a reasonable fashion. I think this is pretty well balanced, it doesn’t use dice (which people apparently hate), and it allows for some interesting interactive elements.
Also, I took another stab at the rewriting of the anti-scam clause in the Resource rule to try and make it fit the new rules.

Comments

kikar:

03-04-2013 04:54:15 UTC

imperial Posting to get e-mails.

Purplebeard:

03-04-2013 08:24:32 UTC

against Sounds like a lot of bookkeeping for minimal gains.

quirck: HE/HIM

03-04-2013 08:51:18 UTC

against

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-04-2013 09:17:50 UTC

against

RaichuKFM: SHE/HER

03-04-2013 11:55:24 UTC

imperial So this isn’t self-killed.

Skju:

03-04-2013 12:55:10 UTC

against per Purplebeard. Also, there’s no limiting the type of a Mine to the type of Resource already tied to a Sector, it’s ambiguous whether it takes up all daily jump actions or just one, and it could be tracked more simply in the Galaxy Map page. But the general motivation might be okay repurposed.

MurphEngineer:

03-04-2013 14:46:24 UTC

against

Larrytheturtle:

03-04-2013 16:09:39 UTC

against

Spitemaster:

03-04-2013 16:36:13 UTC

against

kikar:

03-04-2013 21:13:30 UTC

Skju: Read the line that reads “Mines can only mine resources that are produced in the Sector they are established.” I think that addresses that part of your concern. Also I intended it to take all of a Captain’s jump actions.
Finally, I understand the concern about constant updates. If I were to rewrite this clause to remove the constant updates, would people be in support of this mechanic?

kikar:

03-04-2013 21:14:45 UTC

Also, for. Does this prevent the possible self-veto, RaichuKFM?

Josh: HE/HIM

03-04-2013 22:48:19 UTC

There isn’t such a thing as an accidental self-veto; 1.4.1 says that a self-kill has to be an explicit vote of AGAINST.