Thursday, February 15, 2007

Proposal: Oscars II

Failed 3-7. Josh

Adminned at 17 Feb 2007 01:08:29 UTC

If “Oscars” passes, this proposal does nothing.
If The Doctor’s final vote on this proposal is `:AGAINST:’, it does nothing.

Add new Rule “Oscars”:

When any Actor adds a named role to eir Filmography, e may make a DICEX roll where X equals the maximum value fame can be set to. If the roll is strictly less than eir fame, the Actor gains an Oscar. Each time an Actor gains an Oscar, the number of Oscars e has, tracked in the GNDT column “Oscars”, is increased by 1.  If fame is unbounded, no Oscar rolls may be attempted.  New Actors start with 0 Oscars.

Set each actor to 0 Oscars.

I thought this was a good idea, and The Doctor can’t make a new proposal for a little while, so I shamelessly copied it.  Also, I vote for this, just to make things clear.

posted by Tiberias at 15 Feb 2007 04:01:00 UTC Comments (17)

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

15-02-2007 04:30:43 UTC

What “If fame is unbounded” means?  against

Tiberias:

15-02-2007 04:34:55 UTC

Perhaps “has no maximum value” would have been clearer than “unbounded”, but I believe that they both mean (almost) the same thing.

Tiberias:

15-02-2007 04:36:41 UTC

Actually, that phrase was meant to take care of your comment on The Doctor’s version.

spikebrennan:

15-02-2007 04:40:54 UTC

against Shouldn’t Oscars have some relation to Critical Acclaim?

Tiberias:

15-02-2007 04:51:58 UTC

Possibly.  Critics are often wrong about how movies will fare in the Oscars, however: they don’t actually have a say in the result.

Excalabur:

15-02-2007 06:25:04 UTC

unbounded is a well-defined term, and is in fact more precise and more correct than ‘has no maximum value’ in this context.  The set of real numbers less than three, for instance, has no maximum value, but is bounded.

for

ChinDoGu:

15-02-2007 09:01:45 UTC

for

viewtyjoe:

15-02-2007 09:09:09 UTC

against
I am firmly against determining Oscars in this manner. I either want to see an Academy doing awards (preferrably in addition to our current Critics), Rolls to determine who among those adding named roles in a set period (occuring regularly), or some completely different manner of determining who wins awards.

ChinDoGu:

15-02-2007 09:13:49 UTC

against Cov, Agree with Viewtyjoe

Josh: he/they

15-02-2007 09:24:39 UTC

against

Hix:

15-02-2007 14:46:59 UTC

against , and to those of you who’ve been suggesting such things, I don’t think Critical Acclaim should be made into a major gameplay factor (at least, not yet).  Remember that the method of gaining CA is tied to proposal-authoring, and thus is not linked strongly flavorwise to this dynasty’s theme.

Clucky: he/him

15-02-2007 17:18:30 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

15-02-2007 18:55:42 UTC

I fail to see how the unbounded thing addresses the infinity issue. And I know what “unbounded” means. Could you care to explain how would Fame become unbounded?

Clucky: he/him

15-02-2007 19:31:34 UTC

If someone changed the rules so that fame was unbounded? Its very unlikely, more like a just-in-case kinda thing.

Amnistar: he/him

16-02-2007 16:13:49 UTC

The infinity problem is solved by the phrasing: “When any Actor adds a named role to eir Filmography” placing a limit on when it is do-able.  an since an Actor “may make a DICEX roll” we’ve established a limit of times per condition met.  When an Actor adds a named role he is permited to make a DICEX roll.  The phrases says you can make 1 dice roll every time you add a named roll.

I like it.  for

ChronosPhaenon:

16-02-2007 18:22:23 UTC

And how the unbounded thing relates to that?

Tiberias:

16-02-2007 21:12:16 UTC

Ok.  I misunderstood which issue was the “infinity” issue (your comment wasn’t exactly specific).  I thought you were referring to the presence of one of the proposals that would make Fame unbounded, thus having a maximum value of “infinity”.

For the other issue, Amnistar’s analysis is correct.  I changed the trigger to be an event rather than a continuous state of affairs.