Sunday, November 06, 2011

Proposal: Raiding Markets

Times out 8-6 and is enacted. -coppro

Adminned at 07 Nov 2011 17:14:31 UTC

REPRESENTING: southpointingchariot, Amnistar, Bucky, ais523

In today’s economy, many Employers can’t provide for the welfare of their Employees. In the competitive atmosphere of our days, that can lend to some volatile loyalties.

Add to rule “Employment”:

A player who has a SP of 0 but is not Broke is considered to be Penniless.

A Player listed under another Penniless Player’s Employment is known as a that Player’s Cruel Patron.

At any time, a Cruel Patron may transfer 1 SP to one of the Penniless Players who list that Cruel Patron under their Employment.

At any time a player who is not Broke nor Penniless can Raid for a Penniless Player by transferring 1 SP from themselves to that Player’s Cruel Patron and changing the Penniless Player’s employment to the Raiding Player’s name. The Penniless Player is now considered Employed by the Raiding Player.

 

It does indeed cost 2 SP: 1 for the Raiding and one for hedging your new employee from other raids.

Comments

omd:

06-11-2011 01:16:52 UTC

against Sorry, I don’t like the wording.

southpointingchariot:

06-11-2011 01:23:02 UTC

for

ChronosPhaenon:

06-11-2011 01:25:41 UTC

comex, what in it you don’t like?

scshunt:

06-11-2011 03:29:32 UTC

against

omd:

06-11-2011 04:12:34 UTC

> A Player listed under another Penniless Player’s Employment is known as a that Player’s Cruel Patron.

Should be “the employer of a Penniless Player”.

> At any time, a Cruel Patron may transfer 1 SP to one of the Penniless Players who list that Cruel Patron under their Employment.

You could just say “a player’s Cruel Patron may transfer 1 SP to that player”.

> At any time a player who is not Broke nor Penniless

Redundant - this could just be “any player”, since transferring 1 SP would fail if they don’t have any.

> The Penniless Player is now considered Employed by the Raiding Player.

Also redundant.

SingularByte: he/him

06-11-2011 08:29:21 UTC

against

Shadowclaw:

06-11-2011 12:00:07 UTC

against

Prince Anduril:

06-11-2011 13:03:56 UTC

against Yep - Lots or redundant keywords

Spitemaster:

06-11-2011 15:21:31 UTC

against

Pavitra:

06-11-2011 16:25:57 UTC

for I like the mechanic, the bad grammar can be adminned away, and the redundant keywords don’t affect the function.

arthexis: he/him

06-11-2011 17:09:44 UTC

against Due to grammar

ais523:

06-11-2011 20:48:14 UTC

for Appears to be correctly balanced, and grammar is always fixable.

scshunt:

06-11-2011 23:15:17 UTC

CoV for

Ornithopter:

07-11-2011 00:42:09 UTC

for Comex is right about the wording, though.

lazerchik:

07-11-2011 12:52:34 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

07-11-2011 18:41:52 UTC

against

omd:

07-11-2011 22:12:49 UTC

Well… I do agree it’s correctly balanced.

Whatever.  for