Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Proposal: Personal Criteria

Timed out, 3-2. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 18 Apr 2024 21:16:13 UTC

Add a subrule to Criteria named ‘Personal Criteria’ as such:

Personal Criteria

A Seeker may choose to have a Personal Criteria by making a blog post stating that they wish to do so. All other active Seekers then vote upon Personal Criteria by either stating an object, or by voting :for: with the name of the object or the player who proposed the object’s username. The object with the most :for: votes wins. The Seeker whose Personal Criteria is being voted upon may object to the other Seekers’ choice of Personal Criteria if the Seeker can reasonably prove that there is no such object in their vicinity, that the object is too large or too small, or that the object does not exist. This object becomes the Seeker’s Personal Criteria, which is publicly tracked.

In the rule Scoring, add

If a Seeker who has a Personal Criteria does not include it in their Snap, the Snap is worth 0 points. If they do include their Personal Criteria, then they get three extra points on top of the points they would get normally.


JonathanDark: he/him

16-04-2024 22:48:20 UTC

First, the use of “points” is not quite the correct terminology, although that can be fixed. Use “score” instead.

Second, how do we enforce the idea that a Snap is worth 0 Score? There are two ways to earn score:

1) Respond to a Snap stating the Private Criteria satisfied and not satisfied. The Seeker who posted the Snap can earn Score here, so the “Snap is worth 0 Score” could apply here. Should it?

2) If a responding Seeker says that the Snap is aesthetically pleasing. The Seeker who posted the Snap can earn Score here, so the “Snap is worth 0 Score” could apply here. Should it?

Kevan: City he/him

17-04-2024 11:59:15 UTC


JonathanDark: he/him

17-04-2024 14:35:41 UTC


Josh: he/they

17-04-2024 14:44:54 UTC

Don’t expect me to vote on this

JonathanDark: he/him

17-04-2024 15:48:15 UTC

In that case,  against


17-04-2024 20:57:06 UTC

for new player, new rules
sticking together my friend

Kevan: City he/him

18-04-2024 09:45:35 UTC

against as even with the non-existence clauses this still seems too risky to use.

NadNavillus: he/him

18-04-2024 12:28:14 UTC

for in the mode of being welcoming.

This is an optional rule which is good.  I think this will need other proposals to clean it up after passing.