Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Proposal: #OccupyBN

At 4-21-1, times out and fails. -coppro

Adminned at 28 Oct 2011 09:48:35 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled The 99%:

Each Player can Occupy another player. A Player’s Occupation is tracked in the GNDT, can be changed as a daily action and defaults to - (indicating that that Player is not Occupying any other Player).

If a Player is Occupied by 10% (rounded up) or more of the current active Players then that Player is Blockaded, and any vote that they cast on a proposal is considered to be DEF for the purposes of proposal resolution. This effect only occurs while that Player is Blockaded; as soon as they cease to be Blockaded their votes count as normal for proposal resolution. Any Player whose effective vote on a proposal is changed as a result of being Blockaded is eligible to receive a Stimulus Package.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

26-10-2011 16:16:02 UTC

for Bit of a pain for vote-counting admins, though.

arthexis: he/him

26-10-2011 16:19:29 UTC

for I like the counter theme to mine… but I am unsure about the wording of the last two sentences.

ais523:

26-10-2011 16:21:21 UTC

against Good idea, but probably needs “dynastic proposal” to avoid issues with people using this to mess with the core. (A core proposal disguised as a dynastic proposal is likely to be voted down.)

Bucky:

26-10-2011 16:25:37 UTC

against because it makes us keep track of whether a Player is Blockaded when they cast each vote.

arthexis: he/him

26-10-2011 16:27:16 UTC

against CoV yes, looks like a hassle on hindsight. I would definetely vote FOR if it were reworded a little better and made more admin friendly.

ais523:

26-10-2011 16:28:11 UTC

Actually, just realised how hard this would be to track.

What about just allowing a sufficiently large weight of players to idle another? Comes to much the same thing without much admin load at all.

arthexis: he/him

26-10-2011 16:30:33 UTC

Or someting more drastic? Like allow players occupying another player actually edition that player’s coments and changing their votes to DEF? That would be funny.

Josh: he/they

26-10-2011 16:32:03 UTC

@ais I dislike that because it requires an admin to follow through, and it’s nice to have a mechanic that players can always perform themselves.

I don’t agree that tracking Blockades is such hard work - it just means you need to look at the GNDT before resolving a proposal, as Blockading would only be effective while the Blockade itself was up (i.e. the effect doesn’t persist). At present it would need 5 occupying players to blockade - a quick scan down the applet would be enough to keep track.

Pavitra:

26-10-2011 16:33:12 UTC

imperial Neat idea, but I’d rather leave the decision to the admins who have to deal with it.

Brendan: he/him

26-10-2011 16:42:13 UTC

imperial #occupyfatigue

ais523:

26-10-2011 17:00:30 UTC

@arth: non-admins can’t edit comments.

Prince Anduril:

26-10-2011 17:00:50 UTC

for I like it. As long as we could make a ‘Blockaded list’ or something in the GNDT, it should be okay to track (Re Josh)

Amnistar: he/him

26-10-2011 17:14:44 UTC

against  once blockaded a player could just farm SP by placing an infinite number of against votes that get changed.

Josh: he/they

26-10-2011 17:20:15 UTC

Amnistar- thus the phrase “effective vote”

Amnistar: he/him

26-10-2011 18:03:05 UTC

Josh, I am blockaided. I vote against, it is change to def. I increase SP by 1. Repeat ad infinity.

arthexis: he/him

26-10-2011 18:07:25 UTC

Aminstar is correct

scshunt:

26-10-2011 18:10:01 UTC

against per Amnistar

Spitemaster:

26-10-2011 18:19:29 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

26-10-2011 18:59:17 UTC

against Couldn’t this lock the gamestate?

if we somehow drop below 10 players, if each person blockades someone else no one can vote.

Pavitra:

26-10-2011 19:22:36 UTC

CoV against per Amnistar

southpointingchariot:

26-10-2011 21:06:17 UTC

against

omd:

26-10-2011 21:08:37 UTC

for

Ornithopter:

26-10-2011 21:55:34 UTC

against

Moriarty:

26-10-2011 22:44:32 UTC

against

Winner:

26-10-2011 23:19:42 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

27-10-2011 00:07:41 UTC

[Amnistar] If you are Blockaded, “any vote that [you] cast on a proposal is considered to be DEF for the purposes of proposal resolution”. Your vote will be “changed as a result of being Blockaded” once, and then it won’t change again. Voting AGAINST doesn’t flicker your vote from AGAINST back to DEF, it just remains DEF.

lazerchik:

27-10-2011 05:04:32 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

27-10-2011 05:56:52 UTC

against

zuff:

27-10-2011 07:55:04 UTC

against

SingularByte: he/him

27-10-2011 13:35:33 UTC

against

Ely:

27-10-2011 13:39:42 UTC

against

monqy:

27-10-2011 18:17:34 UTC

against

flurie:

27-10-2011 22:10:50 UTC

against

Soviet Brendon:

28-10-2011 07:35:07 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

28-10-2011 10:34:20 UTC

against