Friday, July 01, 2016

Proposal: No Uckys Allowed

Self killed.—Admined by Clucky

Adminned at 03 Jul 2016 03:22:58 UTC

Reword the rule “Teaming Up” to the following:

If there are exactly two Cooperative Scribes are in a Location, they are a Team.

For the purposes of all Dynastic Rules but this one that care about the Stress or Energy of a Scribe in a Team (a “Team Member”), the Energy of each Team Member in a Team is equal to the higher Energy in the team plus 15, and the Stress of each Team Member is equal to the higher Stress in the Team plus 3. However, if either member of a Team gains or loses Paper (due to a rule other than this one, except the rule “Paper”), so does the other; and if either Member of a team loses Energy or gains Stress (due to a rule other than this one), so does the other.

Scribes may be Cooperative or Uncooperative, defaulting to Uncooperative. If a Scribe is Cooperative, this is represented by an asterisk after the English word in the GNDT field “Location”.

Reword the rule “Locations” to the following:

Each Scribe has a Location, tracked in the GNDT, which by default is “Scriptorum” and can be any single English word. A Scribe whose location is XXX is considered to be “in the XXX”.

As a daily action, a Scribe may change their location. Upon doing so, the Stress of every Scribe with the same location that the Scribe is changing their location to is increased by one (including the stress of the Scribe performing the action), unless that location is the Scriptorum, in which case no Stress values are changed. A Scribe may additionally become Cooperative or Uncooperative, as part of this action.

Add a new Rule, “Clubhouses”, with the following text:

If a Location’s name contains the string “Club”, and two or more Scribes are in that Location, other Scribes cannot change their Location to that Location.

Another stab at making Teaming Up work, this time without an extra GNDT row. (Gaining/losing Paper by the rule Paper also excluded because it would prevent two members of a Team from transferring Paper, and would allow doubling a Team’s Paper by bouncing it off a Proxy, if done correctly.) Also, apparently, Location isn’t actually tracked yet, so fixing that.

(Title thought up on the car ride home yesterday, no harm meant.)

Comments

RaichuKFM:

07-01-2016 17:06:34 UTC

Note: Well, that was a lesson in proofreading. I think I got everything, tell me if I didn’t. (Most egregious: I forgot the ‘except’ in that parenthetical.)

Clucky:

07-01-2016 17:08:44 UTC

against not sure if the proposal title is supposed to be a jab at me or Bucky but either way I’m not okay with it

Clucky:

07-01-2016 17:10:19 UTC

Although I am a little tempted to resurrect this proposal: http://blognomic.com/archive/send_in_the_clones =)

RaichuKFM:

07-01-2016 17:17:17 UTC

Not a jab at either of you, honestly. It was this or “No MCs allowed”, but Ucky sounds funnier.

Sorry if it caused offense. (Also, heh, that’s great.)

Clucky:

07-01-2016 17:31:08 UTC

Yeah IIRC someone apparently thought Bucky and I were the same person and wanted us banned or something.

As far as the actual proposal goes, I’m not a huge fan of the Club rule. I think the changes to the second paragraph are good, but i’d rather not tie team to location.

RaichuKFM:

07-01-2016 17:38:30 UTC

Alright. Since I got my second slot back, I’ll propose the fixes separately, if early sentiment swings against.

Bucky:

07-01-2016 20:43:12 UTC

Clucky refers to this: (http://blognomic.com/archive/remove_cluckys_administrator_access)  Here’s the short version:

Jay: If this proposal passes, remove Clucky’s administrative access to BlogNomic.

Clucky: I was following the rules. If Yoda has any respect at all for the game of Nomic he’ll veto this. against

Bucky: Losing one’s adminship is far too severe a penalty for being on the wrong side of a rules dispute. against

Jay: Are Clucky and Bucky the same person? Is that legal?

Clucky: Do you actually have the nerve to suggest two players who have been around here far longer than you of cheating?

Jay: Yes, I have a lot of nerve. And yes, I am suggesting foul play, because I see two very similarly named players unidling at the same time saying the same thing.

Amnistar: LOL Bucky and Clucky are 2 distinct users.  Trust me :p

Jay: *ucky - sorry dudes.

Yoda:  veto

Clucky:

07-01-2016 21:50:43 UTC

lol reading that reminds me how worse things were

plus that was no where near the worst bit of blognomic drama. Wasn’t there somepoint where someone went rouge and tried to completely take over the game causing 75th trombone to have to go email a bunch of older players to come back and join and save things?

at least now we bang out our differences in a couple of CfJs and then that’s it =)

Bucky:

07-01-2016 22:01:33 UTC

We don’t even have anonymous ban-them CfJs anymore.

RaichuKFM:

07-02-2016 19:14:04 UTC

Welp.

Put me down as glad things are in better shape these days, too.

And, as for the Proposal itself, do you have anything to say, Bucky, or do you just agree with Clucky?

(I’m assuming the quote meaning that you cast a vote of against was intentional.)

Bucky:

07-02-2016 19:59:11 UTC

I’m worried about a group of 3 players, or 2 players and a Proxy, generating an exponentially increasing amount of paper by strategically reforming Teams.  That would ruin any chance of running a decent Paper based economy.

Bucky:

07-02-2016 20:01:10 UTC

Also, the Energy-plus-15 clause has weird results if we ever let Scribes spend Energy.

RaichuKFM:

07-02-2016 20:06:15 UTC

Ah.

I didn’t actually think about that, but you’re right.

I think I was more focused on making Teaming Up work than on, well, actually making it a good rule to have, in retrospect.

Bucky:

07-02-2016 20:32:31 UTC

I think Clucky’s “worst drama” example was the Agoran invasion from 1 Bateleur, although I think the “All proposals this dynasty after the first one were illegal, and it’s also illegal to make CfJs” incident right before the invasion was worse.

Bucky:

07-02-2016 21:02:01 UTC

Just to be clear about my intentions, I’m reiterating my   against vote.

raiChUKfm: was that an intent to self-kill?

RaichuKFM:

07-02-2016 22:22:09 UTC

Basically. I was holding off on the vote proper, but I forget why.

Anyways,  against