Saturday, June 17, 2017

Proposal: Mother May I?

Self-killed. Failed by card.

Adminned at 18 Jun 2017 05:32:07 UTC

Make a new rule “Permission” with the text:

Actions or rules can change their behavior depending upon whether an Explorer has permission from another Explorer.

Permission can only be given or recieved by an official “Permission” blogpost. A Permission post is valid only in the Dynasty it is posted during. A Permission post consists of a statement that gives or revokes permission from the author of that Permission post to one or more explicitly named Explorers. That means no statements like “Explorers with 1 or more X have permission ...”. Permission posts cannot conditionally give permission. A Permission post can give and revoke differently named Explorers within the same post a la “Explorer A has my permission. Explorer B does not have my permission”. A Permission post defaults to valid.

Permission has multipul scopes, i.e. if an Explorer has permission from another Explorer they only have the scope of permission given from the first Explorer and not all permission. As an example, suppose there’s a rule that allows an Explorer to take a point from Explorer they have permission from and there is also a rule that allows an Explorer to move an Explorer they have permission from. If Explorer B has permission from Explorer A to for the movement rule, Explorer B would not also be able to take a point from Explorer A because they don’t have permission for it.Make a new rule “Permission” with the text:
Actions or rules can change their behavior depending upon whether an Explorer has permission from another Explorer.

Permission can only be given or recieved by an official “Permission” blogpost. A Permission post is valid only in the Dynasty it is posted during. A Permission post consists of a statement that gives or revokes permission from the author of that Permission post to one or more explicitly named Explorers. That means no statements like “Explorers with 1 or more X have permission ...”. Permission posts cannot conditionally give permission. A Permission post can give and revoke differently named Explorers within the same post a la “Explorer A has my permission. Explorer B does not have my permission”. A Permission post defaults to valid.

Permission has multipul scopes, i.e. if an Explorer has permission from another Explorer they only have the scope of permission given from the first Explorer and not all permission. As an example, suppose there’s a rule that allows an Explorer to take a point from Explorer they have permission from and there is also a rule that allows an Explorer to move an Explorer they have permission from. If Explorer B has permission from Explorer A to for the movement rule, Explorer B would not also be able to take a point from Explorer A because they don’t have permission for it.

Since people keep on saying they don’t like permission because it’s vague. Let’s make it less vague!
This initial drafting is probably too convoluted, but please to make proposals building upon it if you see any improvements to be made.

Comments

Kevan:

06-17-2017 11:03:39 UTC

This is ambitious stuff, but it seems like overkill to give a huge generic explanation for such a small part of a single rule that’s not even being used very much.

I think the solution is more to avoid trying to answer as broad and breezy a question as “from everything they’ve said and done in the past week, does this player currently ‘have permission’?” and just have a clear and unambiguous Sled-dragging mechanic (“an Explorer may declare another Explorer, or nobody, to be their Skipper, by updating the GNDT; if an Explorer’s is another’s Skipper, they can move them via Sled”).

against

pokes:

06-17-2017 12:19:57 UTC

against

Cuddlebeam:

06-17-2017 13:46:02 UTC

I think it would be easier if permission-granting was all public.

Like:

“You grant permission to another Explorer by making an unambiguous GNDT comment with such information. You may remove an already-granted permission you have given by making another comment for this purpose.”

No more, all done.

Cuddlebeam:

06-17-2017 13:47:24 UTC

Nvm, misread a few parts, sorry.

for Convoluted is OK for me if it works, I prefer something workable but janky than nothing at all.

card:

06-17-2017 15:46:33 UTC

[Kevan] well my concern is that permission was used in the last   dynasty and led to the same sort of concerns we have now. I’m not sure about too many previous Dynasties to that one but permission might be something that people use again. I thought it would be better to have it defined for future dynasties as well as this one.

Cpt_Koen:

06-17-2017 15:54:44 UTC

against

Kevan:

06-17-2017 17:10:25 UTC

[card] Ah, I missed the last dynasty. It looks like the concept of permission doesn’t come up much, or that we write it in a different way when it does.

I think my feeling would be that if we can’t get it down to a single bullet point in the glossary, it’s too complicated to be a core keyword.

card:

06-17-2017 17:44:54 UTC

against

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:

06-17-2017 18:35:47 UTC

for