Saturday, May 08, 2010

Proposal: Plaing the Game

Can’t reach quorum with 15 votes AGAINST, without a change of vote. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 May 2010 07:44:11 UTC

Add a dynastic rule entitled “The Court is Now In Session”, with the following text:

Courts are locations. The list of Courts is: Old Bailey, Wimbledon, The Food Court, The Supreme Court, United Center. A Blognomicer cannot move from Court to Court unless a Rule allows it. A Court can only be vacant occupied by two or more Blognomicers. If multiple Blognomicers are in a Court, they are in a Match together. The Victorious Blognomicer can add a Court to the list at any time, or remove a Court from the list if it is not occupied by anyone and if it is not referenced by name in any Rule.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Challenges”, with the following text:

Any Blognomicer can Challenge another Blognomicer who is not in a Match by posting an entry in the “Challenges” category stating the challengee and the Terms of the Match. The challengee can accept or decline the Challenge by posting a comment with the FOR or AGAINST icon, respectively. The challenger can withdraw the Challenge by posting a comment with the AGAINST icon, at which point it is the same as if the Challenge had been declined. If a Challenge is accepted, the challenger or challengee can move the Blognomicers involved to a vacant Court allowed by the Terms of the Match. An open Challenge is one that has not been accepted or declined.

A Blognomicer cannot Challenge or be Challenged if they are already in a Match, involved with another open Challenge. The Terms of the Match of a Challenge must allow for the Challenge to take place in at least one Court that is vacant at the time the Challenge is issued.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Terms of Matches”, with the following text:

Terms that must be in the Terms of a Match are as follows:

  • The Court or Courts in which the Match must take place.
  • The Referee of the Match, who must be a Blognomicer.
  • The criteria by which the Referee shall determine the Winner of the Match

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Playing of Matches”:

A Match shall be Played in the comments to the Challenge that initiated it. The designated Referee can end the match at any time by posting a FOR (indicating that the challenger Wins), AGAINST (indicating that the challengee Wins), or VETO (indicating that no player Wins) icon. They can only declare a player to be the Winner in accordance with the Terms of the Match; they can additionally end the match without a winner if it is not feasible for the judging of the Match to be completed.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Score”

Every Blognomicer has a Score, tracked in GNDT. When a Blognomicer Wins a Match, they may increase their Score by One.

Add a dynastic rule entitled “Icons of Challenges”

The icons of a Challenge entry should be as follows:

FOR
If the Match has been completed
AGAINST
If the Challenge was declined or withdraws
DEFERENTIAL
If the Challenge has been accepted but the Blognomicers involved are not in a Match
VETO
If the Match is being Played

yay for submitting first drafts as full proposals. suggested challenges might be something like ‘get my next proposal passed before you do’ or something. its open-ended intentionally

Comments

spikebrennan:

09-05-2010 00:38:23 UTC

against
way, way too much.  I’m just a simple caveman, and your extensively long, multi- rule proposal confuses and frightens me.

Galdyn:

09-05-2010 00:47:21 UTC

for seems to make sense for me, and i want scores to be added to the GNDT

Klisz:

09-05-2010 01:16:39 UTC

imperial  GIANT

redtara: they/them

09-05-2010 01:18:39 UTC

against I don’t really want player statistics to play a major role in this dynasty.

Klisz:

09-05-2010 01:25:55 UTC

against  CoV after reading it (in case Ienpw CoVs to FOR)

dbdougla:

09-05-2010 02:46:37 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

09-05-2010 03:07:05 UTC

against

scshunt:

09-05-2010 04:25:03 UTC

imperial

Galdyn:

09-05-2010 04:50:18 UTC

against CoV per Ienpw

digibomber:

09-05-2010 06:59:36 UTC

against

keecz:

09-05-2010 08:30:12 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

09-05-2010 09:32:12 UTC

imperial The ascension address is a good time to tell us things like that, Ienpw.

redtara: they/them

09-05-2010 14:24:41 UTC

I thought I’d made that clear last dynasty, what with all the “rules-based gameplay” talk.

Jumblin McGrumblin:

09-05-2010 15:12:02 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

09-05-2010 18:58:35 UTC

imperial

Purplebeard:

09-05-2010 18:59:55 UTC

imperial

Klisz:

10-05-2010 02:45:34 UTC

Heh, this is self-killed because coppro voted DEF and Ienpw voted against. No need for more votes.

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 04:26:55 UTC

No it’s not. Precedent says it’s open.

Qwazukee:

10-05-2010 04:28:27 UTC

False. Precedent says it is self-killed… instances of which I think you have been around for, Ienpw.

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 04:35:58 UTC

Last time this happened we didn’t count it as self killed…

Qwazukee:

10-05-2010 04:40:54 UTC

I can remember, like, 6 times in my tenure that it has counted as self-killed; but nothing specifically, as those proposals were obviously dubious to begin with.

In any case, the rules make it pretty clear that it is self-killed:

“A Vote of DEFERENTIAL is a Vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Victorious Blognomicer. The Vote will count as the same as the Victorious Blognomicer’s Vote.”

“If a Blognomicer Votes against his own Proposal, that Vote may not be changed. This is referred to as a Self-Kill.”

Darknight: he/him

10-05-2010 04:43:22 UTC

The way I see it, it’s not a direct vote of AGN. It counts as such but since the icon was the DEF one I, IMO, think its not a SK.

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 04:43:31 UTC

But he did not Vote against his own proposal. His Vote is against, but he Voted DEF.

Darknight: he/him

10-05-2010 04:43:46 UTC

And my wording is soooo screwed up there.

Darknight: he/him

10-05-2010 04:44:16 UTC

Thank you Ien for helping with my point lol.

redtara: they/them

10-05-2010 04:44:58 UTC

Either way, I’ve opened CFJs to solve this problem.

Qwazukee:

10-05-2010 04:48:32 UTC

*Sigh* if I cared just a little bit more, I would find a few instances where this was treated as a Self-kill….

Keba:

10-05-2010 13:20:57 UTC

against, but this is not a S/K.

flurie:

10-05-2010 14:39:14 UTC

against