Sunday, October 11, 2009

Proposal: Non-proposal additions to the rules (and subtractions)

Timed out 3 votes to 9, 1 deferential. Failed by Kevan. -2 points to Excalabur.

Adminned at 13 Oct 2009 08:21:27 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled “Sandbox”, with the text

Sentences in subrules of this rule have no effect if they are incomplete or ungrammatical.  Under no circumstances can a player claim victory due to this rule or its subrules.  This rule overrides any of its subrules, even if they contain text to the contrary.

Create a subrule of “Sandbox” entitled “Sandcastle”

Add a new subrule to 2.1 Points entitled “Adding to the Sandcastle [5 Points]”, with the text

A player may add one word to the end of the rule “Sandbox”, and then optionally add up to one punctuation mark.  Under no circumstances may a player add a word or punctuation mark which creates an ungrammatical sentence or makes it impossible for an incomplete sentence to be completed grammatically.

Add a new subrule to 2.1 Points entitled “Kicking over the Sandcastle [8 Points]” with the text

A player may, if there is an incomplete sentence in the rule “Sandbox”, delete one word from the end of an incomplete sentence in that rule.

Comments

Klisz:

10-11-2009 16:10:03 UTC

for

Josh:

10-11-2009 17:09:41 UTC

for

arthexis:

10-11-2009 17:16:22 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

10-11-2009 17:54:02 UTC

against on several counts
1)Frequency limit, please. I don’t want someone with enough point to be able to push through a complete sentence in one go.
2)The third and fourth rules added should modify the rule “Sandcastle”, not the rule “sandbox”.

Kevan:

10-11-2009 18:04:50 UTC

against Per Bucky. No incentive not to save up.

Ienpw III:

10-11-2009 18:25:37 UTC

against Because it’s still impossible to /indirectly/ win because of that rule.

Darknight:

10-11-2009 21:41:50 UTC

against Good idea though

Excalabur:

10-12-2009 02:02:21 UTC

If it’s daily or whatever, It’ll have to be much, much cheaper.  1 point is not unreasonable, in my opinion.

Oranjer:

10-12-2009 02:04:09 UTC

against I agree, good idea—but I believe that this proposal would have too much power over the game—if you want to create a sandbox, may I suggest creating a sub-game with rules that do not have any bearing on BlogNomic?

ais523:

10-12-2009 08:55:02 UTC

against Trivial to get around the victory rule, e.g. you could add something like “Whoever most recently spent points can change the rules arbitrarily”, and use that to make some other rule into a victory rule.

spikebrennan:

10-12-2009 15:46:07 UTC

against

Ienpw III:

10-12-2009 17:39:17 UTC

Failing 7-2, with 1 DEF

Oze:

10-12-2009 21:25:08 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

10-13-2009 00:13:17 UTC

against What was the name of the empty BLO rule that was similar?