Monday, March 01, 2010

Proposal: No really, I can not afford this.

Reached quorum 15 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 02 Mar 2010 11:36:57 UTC

Add a new paragraph to the rule “2.2 Inventions” with the following text:

A Commoner can, at will, dismantle an Invention he owns, by regaining half of the Invention’s Composition (rounded down), raising his income by the Invention’s Power Requirement, and removing the Invention from the wiki page [[Inventions]]. The Invention is no longer considered owned by the Commoner who dismantled it.

Comments

Ienpw III:

03-01-2010 02:59:14 UTC

for

Roujo:

03-01-2010 03:09:40 UTC

for

Klisz:

03-01-2010 04:01:51 UTC

for

Klisz:

03-01-2010 04:02:34 UTC

against  CoV; the power requirement is spent in Coal, not Income.

Roujo:

03-01-2010 04:26:47 UTC

“A Commoner can create an Invention, with a set of existing Parts of his choice, in their own possession by spending Resources equal to the total Compositions of every Part in the Invention, spending its Power Requirement in Coal, and reducing his income by its Power Requirement;”

The power requirement is spent in both Coal and Income, so it’s fair to get back Income when you dismantle it.

Josh: HE/HIM

03-01-2010 07:37:31 UTC

for

Darknight: HE/HIM

03-01-2010 07:44:16 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

03-01-2010 09:44:07 UTC

for

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-01-2010 10:23:03 UTC

for

ais523:

03-01-2010 10:25:22 UTC

for I was planning to propose something like this myself.

spikebrennan:

03-01-2010 14:12:31 UTC

imperial

Hix:

03-01-2010 15:03:52 UTC

against Regarding the ability to do this at-will I suppose I defer to the Mad Prince’s judgement.  I would have preferred dismantling to have to be done by a specific Part.

But again, Inventions don’t have a “Composition”.

hellzapoppin:

03-01-2010 15:37:37 UTC

for

Oze:

03-01-2010 16:04:55 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

03-01-2010 16:47:59 UTC

Hix: Yes they do. Read the rules.

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-01-2010 17:01:08 UTC

[Ienpw] No; the ruleset says that Parts have Composition, but doesn’t define what the Composition of an Invention is. It’s only very loosely implied that the Composition of an Invention is the sum of the Compositions of its Parts - we should really state that explicitly somewhere.

ais523:

03-01-2010 17:06:31 UTC

I agree with Hix on both points; it’s probably worth a fix proposal once I have slots back (to make this a cheap Part rather than at-will, and to define Composition).

Ienpw III:

03-01-2010 17:25:18 UTC

I suppose it’s down to interpretation.

Anonyman:

03-01-2010 17:48:05 UTC

for

Keba:

03-01-2010 18:47:53 UTC

for

digibomber:

03-02-2010 12:06:34 UTC

imperial

flurie:

03-02-2010 19:28:28 UTC

for