Monday, February 16, 2009

Proposal: More Loyalty fun

Orders are Important. The General is required to follow the Orders given by High Command. Soldiers are required to follow the Orders given by the General. Small animals are required to follow the Orders given by the Soldiers. It is a group or person’s Right and Requirement to punish those who are disorderly!

Reporting, Devenger.

(Reached quorum, 12-0.)

Adminned at 17 Feb 2009 14:44:50 UTC

Create a new sub-rule of Loyalty “Physical Reinforcement” with the text:

Whenever a Soldier’s Health is reduced, that Soldier may once, within 48 hours, increase or decrease their loyalty by 2.

Create a new sub-rule of Loyalty “General’s Orders” with the text:

The General may post a story post with the text [General’s Order] in the title.  The most recent of these Story Post shall be stickied and is considered “Active Orders”.  This story post shall contain a list of orders that Soldiers are expected to follow, explicitly as actions which are disallowed Such as Soldiers may not restock their ammo..  Each such Order shall be listed on a numerical list.  A soldier may post a comment in the Active Orders with the text “Disputing Order #X” where X is replaced by the number of the Order which they wish to dispute, and include the reasoning for this dispute.  The General then has 48 hours to respond to this post with either an acceptance of this dispute, in which case the Order shall be removed from the post, or to refute the dispute, in which case the Order shall be removed from the post and the Loyalty of the Soldier that disputed the Order shall be reduced by 5.  If the General fails to respond the Loyalty of the Soldier that disputed the Order shall be increased by 5 and the Order shall be considered to have been removed from the post.

Create a new sub-rule of Martial Law “Following Orders” with the text:

It is considered a breach of Martial Law to perform an action that is disallowed in the Active Orders per rule Generals Orders.

Comments

Wooden Squid:

02-16-2009 17:41:44 UTC

for oooooh fun

Amnistar:

02-16-2009 17:42:30 UTC

And for those that are wondering, the ‘dispute’ is set-up so if I accident screw up and make a rule that would make gameplay impossible, or some such, we can get rid of it without to much trouble.

Kevan:

02-16-2009 17:46:05 UTC

Not sure we need such a dispute formal system; the General being able to retract orders at whim would work just as well, wouldn’t it?

And if these are going to be sticky posts, we could just combine them with Skirmish posts (which I assume will also be sticky?), rather than having new blog entries below two sticky posts. “No restocking ammo until we defeat the enemies in this particular skirmish” seems usefully thematic.

Can change this later, though. for

ais523:

02-16-2009 18:19:20 UTC

for I like it, if we really screw up badly with this we can just fix it via a (possibly martially illegal) CfJ.

Qwazukee:

02-16-2009 18:31:36 UTC

for

Devenger:

02-16-2009 19:29:09 UTC

for The General is wise; he needs this degree of power over our actions in order to best guide us through the battles that lie ahead. While we may not be able to see the benefits of his orders in the short run, those Loyal will triumph in the end!

TrumanCapote:

02-16-2009 20:18:07 UTC

for

dogfish:

02-16-2009 22:48:39 UTC

for

Sparrow:

02-17-2009 00:32:25 UTC

So a disputed Order is always removed in all three cases?

Darknight:

02-17-2009 03:51:11 UTC

for

arthexis:

02-17-2009 04:47:42 UTC

for

dogfish:

02-17-2009 10:57:23 UTC

for however I don’t understand why the Order is removed even when the dispute is refuted by the general

dogfish:

02-17-2009 10:58:12 UTC

Also I voted on this twice without realising, FOR both times, watch out :)

SingularByte:

02-17-2009 11:35:20 UTC

for

Klisz:

02-17-2009 16:12:59 UTC

for

Amnistar:

02-17-2009 19:46:23 UTC

the dispute section can be fixed up; I just wanted to make sure there was something there.

Gnauga:

02-17-2009 22:43:39 UTC

for