Wednesday, May 01, 2024

Proposal: Notorious B-U-G

Exceeded quorum, 6-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 03 May 2024 20:03:14 UTC

Replace the text of “Notoriety” with “Every Thief has a Level of Notoriety, which can be negative and defaults to -5. A Thief’s Level of Notoriety, Notoriety, and Notoriety Level are all considered to be synonymous with each other. Notoriety may never be higher than 50, and any action that would set Notoriety to a value above 50 instead sets it to 50. Likewise, Notoriety may never be lower than -50 and any action that would set Notoriety to a value below -50 instead sets it to 50.”

In “Possessions” replace “At any time a Thief may take an action known as Selling, to remove a Possession from their own inventory to gain Florins equal to its Value.” with

At any time a Thief may take an atomic action known as Selling by performing the following steps:
- Identify a Possession in their own Inventory
- Gain Florins and Notoriety equal to its Value
- If their Notoriety after doing so is above 0, roll a DICE(51-N) where N is their new Notoriety)
- If the above step is performed and the result is 1, then they are Caught and 50% of their Florins, rounded up, are distributed evenly amongst all other Thieves, with any remaining Florins lost.
- In either case, remove the identified possession from their own inventory

Reduce the Notoriety of all Thieves by five

Fixing some concerns with the current status of Notoriety

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

01-05-2024 23:35:17 UTC

You want to fix up your Black Market here too, or are you planning to withdraw that one and re-propose it?

Clucky: he/him

02-05-2024 01:11:24 UTC

I don’t wanna put too much in one proposal. Someone else can try to fix black market or I can retry it later if it doesn’t go through.

Josh: he/they

02-05-2024 10:41:19 UTC

“any action that would set Notoriety to a value below -50 instead sets it to 50.”

Nad: he/him

02-05-2024 11:10:13 UTC

for
I like this clean up. 

The only suggestion would be to first convert the possession in question to Florins to be part of the distribution.  Not sure if that’s clear here.

Nad: he/him

02-05-2024 11:24:05 UTC

Nevermind, I see that it’s already converted in a bullet above.

Josh: he/they

02-05-2024 11:32:55 UTC

against

JonathanDark: he/him

02-05-2024 13:40:39 UTC

for

We can deal with the “-50 to 50” issue. There’s not even a mechanic to lower Notoriety yet.

Kevan: he/him

02-05-2024 14:09:46 UTC

for

Desertfrog:

02-05-2024 15:24:43 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

02-05-2024 15:33:38 UTC

@JonathanDark I’m not sure we need to fix anything; it’s clearly a typo imo

JonathanDark: he/him

02-05-2024 15:49:15 UTC

Is it though? You’re the one that pointed it out and then subsequently voted against.

Perhaps those two things aren’t related. I suppose we’ll see what happens if this is enacted. In the meantime, I don’t mind wasting a proposal slot to patch a potential scam.

Josh: he/they

02-05-2024 15:58:53 UTC

The two aren’t related.

Clucky: he/him

02-05-2024 16:17:27 UTC

Its definitely a typo and not a scam, but I’m not sure it falls under “*obvious* spelling, punctuation, and/or typographical mistakes” that can be automatically corrected, if that makes sense…

JonathanDark: he/him

02-05-2024 19:07:08 UTC

Yeah, I wouldn’t count it as an obvious mistake either, especially when “50” is a valid value. Maybe you meant for it to wrap around? (unlikely, but…)

It would be different if it was “500”.

4st:

03-05-2024 17:35:51 UTC

It’s not a typo imo, but also, no way to lower notoriety. I assume that that just being so famous makes you a criminal anyways, which seems fine. Should work the other way too, RING MATH lol

4st:

03-05-2024 17:37:13 UTC

for I meant to vote when I said all that