Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Proposal: Ontological Guardians

enacted 3-0
-lemon

Adminned at 29 Jun 2023 09:26:00 UTC

In the rule “Tier 6: The Wall”, rename the subrule “Caretaker” to “Ontological Guardians”. Replace the text in the subrule “Ontological Guardians” with the following text:

Every Avatar has a Designation, which defaults to empty. For each Occupancy Tier listed in the table below, whenever there is at least one Avatar with that Occupancy Tier, the Ascendant shall set the Avatar’s Designation to the Designation value in that table row if the Avatar’s current Designation is empty and no other Avatar already has that same Designation. If there is more than one Avatar that would meet this criteria, the Ascendant shall privately randomly choose one of the Avatars meeting this criteria.

Whenever an Avatar’s Designation changes from empty to a Designation from the table below, the Ascendant shall generate a Portent with the format described in the Portent column for the table row containing that Designation, where (date) is the current date and (sign) is the Avatar’s star sign. Immediately after a Mindjacker ascends from Mindjacking an Avatar with a Designation from the table below, add the amount indicated in the Matterium column for the table row containing that Designation to that Midjacker’s Matterium.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Ontological Guardians
|-
! Occupancy Tier || Designation || Portent || Matterium
|-
| 4 || Messenger || “On (date), Neptune crossed the cusp of (sign)” || 1
|-
| 5 || Enforcer || “On (date), Mars was in retrograde during the sign of (sign)” || 2
|-
| 6 || Caretaker || “On (date), Mercury moved into (sign)” || 4
|-
| 7 || Overwatcher || “On (date), the outer planets aligned in the sign of (sign)” || 6
|-
|}

Comments

Bucky:

28-06-2023 06:03:24 UTC

If you let the Messenger be Tier 4, this rule should be Tier 5, so that the bounty isn’t awarded or not based on who’s processing an Ascension to level 5.

lemon: she/her

28-06-2023 08:29:43 UTC

i’m willing to pass & fix, but bucky is definitely right!

JonathanDark: he/him

28-06-2023 12:54:23 UTC

Bucky:

28-06-2023 16:44:00 UTC

imperial  based on whether Josh considers the first paragraph of the rule to be reasonable on a close reading.

JonathanDark: he/him

28-06-2023 17:13:02 UTC

I would be curious to know what isn’t reasonable. Josh, if you find that the first paragraph has unclear directions or has any part that is not actionable, let us know so that it can be fixed.

Josh: he/they

28-06-2023 21:32:42 UTC

It could be more elegantly worded but I doon’t find it especially ambiguous; for each Tier there may be one Designate.

I’m still imperial on the grounds that this is a purely tactical matter but I have no objection on clarity.

lemon: she/her

28-06-2023 22:37:13 UTC

for