Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Proposal: Odd: Free Hugs in Marble Arch

Reaches antiquorum and fails, 1-12. Josh

Adminned at 06 Apr 2011 11:56:20 UTC

Add the following Oddity to Marble Arch:

Marble Arch is always considered Unoccupied. If two or more players are in Marble Arch, they may change the n-th letter in their own Trail to the n-th letter of any other player’s located in Marble Arch. They may not change the others’ Trails.

I’m in Angel.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

05-04-2011 06:39:44 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

05-04-2011 07:02:51 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

05-04-2011 07:15:46 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

05-04-2011 12:01:36 UTC

for And I bet this will be part of a scam

Subrincinator:

05-04-2011 12:58:02 UTC

for

Ely:

05-04-2011 13:08:31 UTC

[spike] Why?

spikebrennan:

05-04-2011 13:20:08 UTC

Because it explicitly permits two Players to collude in order to compose the Trail of one of them.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-04-2011 14:11:36 UTC

CoV against Changed my mind on this because it’s not a daily action, meaning that a player can copy the entirety of another player’s trail over in one go if they wish. In other words, it makes farming trail combos amongst a cabal fairly trivial.

Ely:

05-04-2011 14:23:20 UTC

imperial CoV. Did not think it could be so dangerous.

Roujo: he/him

05-04-2011 14:45:59 UTC

imperial =P

Travis:

05-04-2011 15:14:37 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

05-04-2011 15:28:22 UTC

against
COV per Josh

Florw:

05-04-2011 17:25:44 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

05-04-2011 17:27:57 UTC

Is it that dangerous? If you farm an UNLOCK off of an accomplice, and use it, then your Trail is now reduced. I’m assuming that the fact you can only “change the n-th letter” means that if you only have one letter in your Trail, you can’t copy the second, third, fourth and fifth letters of “UNLOCK”.

Subrincinator:

05-04-2011 17:45:51 UTC

imperial CoV per Josh.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-04-2011 17:48:15 UTC

You’d only need three accomplices to achieve victory instantly under the terms of “An alternative unlocking proposal”. That’s well within the reach of a moderately organised IRC channel.

lilomar:

05-04-2011 17:51:21 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

05-04-2011 17:58:39 UTC

They’d all have to have six letters in their Trail already, but fair enough - the game is more interesting if a single UNLOCK isn’t the end of the world.

for

Kevan: he/him

05-04-2011 17:58:54 UTC

By which I mean against

William:

05-04-2011 22:08:05 UTC

against

Chivalrybean:

05-04-2011 23:11:30 UTC

against

Saakara:

05-04-2011 23:38:58 UTC

against

ais523:

06-04-2011 01:19:48 UTC

Is this proposal self-killed? (What does a self-DEF mean? I remember we had this argument before…)

lilomar:

06-04-2011 02:15:26 UTC

Last time we decided that it was indeed self-killed. I remember, because that was right before I added some modifications to BNscript, and that is one of the features I added.

Ely:

06-04-2011 06:12:17 UTC

against Expliciting. If it was already self-killed, this may be an illegal move or an invalid vote, I don’t know.