Thursday, October 08, 2009

Proposal: On Transfers and Fees

Reached quorum, enacted by Darth Cliche. +10 to arthexis.

Adminned at 10 Oct 2009 13:30:57 UTC

Create a rule called “Fees”:

Dynastic Rules may have fees associated with them. The fee for a rule is noted in a label such as “[X Points]” next to the name of that rule, where X is a positive number. The fee is not considered to be part of the name of that rule when the rule is referred to.

Whenever a rule with a fee defines an action, a Player may not perform that action until that Player pays the fee of that rule, by spending X Points (X being the number in the label as explained above) along a GNDT comment containing the name of the rule defining that action.  This fee must be paid for each time the Player attempts to perform the action.

If a sub-rule has a fee, and the rule that contains it has a fee as well, both fees must be paid to perform an action in the sub-rule.

Create a new sub-rule “Transfers [2 Points]” under rule “Points”:

At any time, a Player with 1 or more points may transfer any amount between 1 and 100 of their own points to any other Player of their choice (to perform the transfer, the first Player decreases their score by the transfered amount and then increases the other Player’s Score by the same amount).


Allows alliances but doesn’t make them too easy. I am planning for players to be allowed to modify the fees for rules somehow.



10-08-2009 22:19:39 UTC


Ienpw III:

10-08-2009 22:21:34 UTC

for  for


10-08-2009 22:36:07 UTC



10-08-2009 22:39:16 UTC

against Can we not transfer things? Leads to politics, which I hate.


10-08-2009 22:41:13 UTC

can always repeal that one lol


10-08-2009 22:49:07 UTC

Sorry Quaz, adults like to play politic games. Its like something that screws your head the older you get. In fact, you might want to stop playing BN altogether, because it is basically politics all the way through.


10-08-2009 22:52:03 UTC

Well, I don’t mind, it just seems to result in some people becoming mad/unreasonable. I don’t know why, perhaps you could enlighten me?


10-08-2009 23:05:05 UTC

There’s a concern with points-as-implemented and negative numbers.  We need a lower bound on points for this to work (This is true of my proposal, too: I hadn’t caught that points can go negative), or we need to be unable to spend into negative numbers.

Also, ‘both’ should be ‘all such’, in the case of sub-sub-etc. rules.

I would also prefer the two halves of this proposal to be proposed separately



10-08-2009 23:07:30 UTC

@Excalabur: your first point is a non issue, per the glosary clarifies that one can only spend something if they have more than zero of it.


10-08-2009 23:20:34 UTC

for COV


10-09-2009 03:57:26 UTC



10-09-2009 03:58:11 UTC



10-09-2009 04:00:57 UTC

Arth: Strongly disagree with you.  “Spend” means “Subtract price from value”, which is illegal in the case where the price is greater value is constrained to be nonnnegative.  The example text in the next bullet point is nonnormative, as it is an example of a value constrained to be positive (by default).


10-09-2009 05:53:49 UTC

I read:

“No action may be taken which would require setting a gamestate variable to an illegal value. (e.g. spending X of a numeric value that must be non-negative when the subtraction would result in a number which is negative).”

How come that is not normative? It is written on the ruleset. Or are you also implying that in rule 1.2 the text:

“Anybody may apply to join BlogNomic (if he is not already playing)”

So, really I can apply to join Blognomic even if I’m already playing, because test in parenthesis does not count? And in which rule does it say so?


10-09-2009 06:00:22 UTC

Even if we where to accept the curious proposition that we can selectively choose to ignore some rules because we do not think they are actually valid, you still have one other thing to consider:

The text “No action may be taken which would require setting a gamestate variable to an illegal value” is not in parenthesis, meaning you can probably agree with me that it is indeed part of a rule. Then, the example it cites as on how to apply such rule is basically (it’s even using the same vocabulary) the same thing written out on this proposal.

Given that it was at some point selected as an example on how to handle that rule, kinda makes me thing it should be a good, appropriate example. However, your position seems to place us on the strange situation that: we added some nonsense text, labeled like a rule example, which does not at all an example to its rule, but rather something completely irrelevant, placed there for kicks and giggles.

Ok, no, that sounds just too illogical to me, sorry.

Ienpw III:

10-09-2009 06:26:59 UTC

Don’t worry, Excalabur. It seems fine to me.


10-09-2009 08:32:40 UTC



10-09-2009 09:43:36 UTC



10-09-2009 12:37:23 UTC



10-09-2009 19:54:13 UTC

Currently 7-3 passing


10-09-2009 20:36:07 UTC



10-09-2009 20:37:00 UTC


Ienpw III:

10-10-2009 01:06:22 UTC

Can someone CoV, so we can pass this now and speed up the queue?


10-10-2009 20:28:08 UTC