Thursday, June 16, 2016

Proposal: Orphan Works

Passes 6-0. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 17 Jun 2016 17:46:37 UTC

Add a new rule called “Apocrypha” as follows:

As a Daily Action, but not more than three times in a given week, the Editor may select a random previous Dynasty with an archived Ruleset, then select a random Dynastic Rule from that Ruleset, including as many of the rule’s subrules as they deem appropriate. The Editor may use a randomization method of their own choice for this action. Upon selecting such a rule, they may copy its text and add it as a new Dynastic Rule to the current Ruleset, replacing the terms for Emperor-analog and Player-analog with “Editor” and “Scribe” as appropriate. The Editor may not create a new victory condition by performing this action.

Comments

RaichuKFM:

06-16-2016 18:20:47 UTC

for  arrow

This is gonna be fun.

Bucky:

06-16-2016 19:28:26 UTC

After 2 Darth Cliche, I have strong reservations about giving the Editor the ability to directly modify the ruleset. I think, rather, that there should be a review period for the changes to allow for last minute fixes of game breaking problems.

Also, this has a couple of minor issues; it should specify that it only steals rules from the final ruleset, and adding victory conditions should be prevented outright rather than a “may not”.

imperial , because this is the Editor’s first dynastic proposal.  Expect a fix proposal next week.

(I unidled before voting, quorum remaining 3 at that time)

GenericPerson:

06-16-2016 20:04:24 UTC

I do like the concept, but agree that having a review period is probably a good idea. I’d have thought that the victory condition clause as is would be sufficient, but making it absolutely impossible to add one via the action couldn’t hurt. 

imperial As a side note, it would also be nice if changes could be made to text format and such of the chosen rule(s) when added, provided that such changes did not alter the actual effects.

This concern might not be warranted, but couldn’t copying rules as is cause consistency issues, format wise? It might not be easy to fix that sort of thing under the current rules, and they could potentially make the rule set difficult to read. Spelling issues and such can certainly be fixed, but nothing to do with text format is specified. With this proposal they’d legally have to be copied as is wouldn’t they? The text “Upon selecting such a rule, they may copy its text” seems to suggest so.

Or perhaps a separate proposal could be made to deal with such things, as this comment turned out a lot longer than I had planned. A separate rule to ensure consistency/readability would probably be reasonably thematic anyway. Then again, such a rule might have to define the standards for how the rule-set should be too rigorously, and that might just be a far bigger pain. There probably aren’t that many rules that’d be an issue in this sense anyway.

Larrytheturtle:

06-16-2016 20:40:59 UTC

for “may not” is keyworded as “is not permitted to” so it is fine as is. I do agree about the review period though.

Bucky:

06-17-2016 04:36:16 UTC

Make sure whatever randomization method you choose can select subrules!

Kevan:

06-17-2016 06:24:25 UTC

for

Brendan:

06-17-2016 17:16:20 UTC

@Bucky: this rule as written allows the Editor to include “as many of the rule’s subrules as they deem appropriate.” I appreciate the review.

@GenericPerson: I agree that it would be nice to have consistency; that’s what I am hoping to see proposals for each time we import a new rule—scrambling to patch things and make them work together, rather than a series of unrelated text blocks. I like trying to find connections between disparate things, and I think it should be fun.