Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Proposal: Reimaging

Timed out 6-1. Enacted by card.

Adminned at 27 Apr 2017 17:17:09 UTC

In “Managers”, replace

Whenever they acquire a Blogger, their Image changes to be whatever that Blogger’s highest stat is (if there is a tie among stats, then its randomly determined among the tied stats) immediately after the acquisition. Whenever a Manager acquires a Blogger whose highest stat isn’t that of their Image, that Blogger loses one Level. Whenever a Manager acquires a Blogger whose highest stat is that of their Image, that Blogger gains one Level.

with:

A Blogger’s dominant stat is their highest stat; on ties, Brains has the highest precedence, followed by Balls, then Brawn.
Whenever a Manager acquires a Blogger, their Image changes to be that Blogger’s dominant stat immediately after the acquisition. Whenever a Manager acquires a Blogger whose dominant stat isn’t that of their Image, that Blogger loses one Level. Whenever a Manager acquires a Blogger whose dominant stat is that of their Image, that Blogger gains one Level.

Change Managers’ images and their Bloggers’ levels to what they would be if this new rule text had been active, instead of the existing rule, since the addition of the “Managers” rule to the ruleset.

I unfortunately messed up the acquisition process, ignoring this rule. I’d go back and fix it, but I’d like a deterministic process, since if it causes any issues, arguing about how to do it right amongst possible rerolling would be a catastrophe.

Comments

Crumb:

04-25-2017 16:32:53 UTC

You have two things that happen “Whenever a Manager acquires a Blogger” shouldn’t the order of these two things be made clear? If the Image is changed first the Blogger will always be gaining a level. (Of course this issue is with the original rule.)

Oracular rufio:

04-25-2017 16:45:11 UTC

Ahh, I didn’t realize this had passed.  Shouldn’t there be no penalty to hiring bloggers when your image is None, though?  As is, everyone loses a level whenever they hire their first blogger.

pokes:

04-25-2017 16:59:16 UTC

Eh, it’s still fair (everyone is -1 level total) and probably not worth special-casing the first Blogger not getting penalized. Call it the price of getting oriented to starting a whole new team.

Cuddlebeam:

04-25-2017 19:16:05 UTC

If everyone is penalized, then nobody is penalized lol

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:

04-25-2017 20:01:28 UTC

for

Cuddlebeam:

04-25-2017 20:02:47 UTC

Although in the same way if everyone is given a handout then nobody has gotten a handout lol.

for

derrick:

04-25-2017 20:26:51 UTC

oooh! next proposal I’ll give us all $10,000,000! handout time!

JK.

Cuddlebeam:

04-25-2017 21:09:58 UTC

Its fascinating how relativistic everything is lol. Actually giving everyone the same amount of money wouldn’t be unfair I believe.

Crumb:

04-25-2017 21:22:30 UTC

for

derrick:

04-25-2017 22:03:29 UTC

against this is not necessary.

It does if starting cash matters for the win condition. And if I have anything to say about the win condition, it will.

Oracular rufio:

04-25-2017 22:20:19 UTC

for

pokes:

04-25-2017 22:36:41 UTC

I whole-heartedly support the win condition taking starting cash into account.

And this is not really necessary, it’s only for avoiding myself a hassle.

card:

04-26-2017 16:42:11 UTC

for

pokes:

04-27-2017 10:13:19 UTC

Dear other admins: I’ll enact this one (I know it’ll be a pain) but it’ll have to be around 20:00 UTC