Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Proposal: Reproposed.

Failed 13-2. Quorum against, and arguably s/ked.—alethiophile

Adminned at 16 Dec 2009 18:44:17 UTC

Create a new rule, “Insanity and Calmes”:

          Each adventurer has a statistic called their Sanity, Sanity Level, Insanity, or Insanity Level. Its legal values are all integers between and including 0 and 100. If at any time an adventurer’s sanity would be set to a negative value, it is changed to 0. If at any time an adventurer’s sanity would be changed to above 100, it is set to 100. Each adventurer’s sanity is initially 50.

          Up to three times per week, but not more frequently than once every 18 hours, adventurers may increase their sanity by 10.

          If an adventurer’s sanity becomes zero, they suffer a mental breakdown, and – rules to the contrary notwithstanding- may not take any game actions for a period of 36 hours. Their sanity may not be modified until this time has elapsed, at which time it increases by 20.

          If an adventurer suffers a level x shock, the integer that is x is subtracted from their sanity. If an adventurer has a boost of x, the integer that is x is added to their sanity.


Create a subrule to the above rule, and call it Shocks and Boosts.

*If an adventurer causes the Djinni to be outside the lamp, they suffer a level 20 shock.

*If an adventurer causes the Djinni to be inside the lamp, they have a boost of 15.

*If the Djinni grants an adventurer’s wish, that adventurer suffers a level 10 shock.

*If an adventurer gains power, they suffer a level 3 shock for each power they gain.


If possession is defined by the rules, add the following bullet to the above subrule:

*If the Djinni possesses an adventurer, then that adventurer suffers a level 75 shock.



Ienpw III:

12-16-2009 03:48:34 UTC

for “Also, game actions include voting. It has to be game actions defined in the DYnastic rules. “

I’d call it a typo.


12-16-2009 03:50:24 UTC

I wouldn’t. It’s a distinct error in the proposal.  against


12-16-2009 03:52:15 UTC

imperial s/k. Defintely not a typo.

Ienpw III:

12-16-2009 03:55:03 UTC

Well that’s just dandy, ain’t it?


12-16-2009 03:56:14 UTC

I wonder if Wak can legally CoV…


12-16-2009 04:03:02 UTC

How is that a s/k? Its not binding.

Ienpw III:

12-16-2009 04:16:41 UTC

I don’t think DEFs are S/Ks


12-16-2009 06:00:09 UTC



12-16-2009 06:05:11 UTC



12-16-2009 07:20:42 UTC



12-16-2009 08:11:38 UTC



12-16-2009 08:40:34 UTC



12-16-2009 09:19:26 UTC



12-16-2009 10:33:47 UTC



12-16-2009 10:57:21 UTC



12-16-2009 15:58:13 UTC



12-16-2009 16:00:55 UTC

against There’s a much bigger problem with this proposal. Actions that would cause gamestate values to be set to illegal values are illegal, remember? So if anyone has a low enough sanity, things that would shock them, such as granting their wishes, would be impossible. (Also, I’d like the sanity gain to be a weekly rather than thrice-weekly action, with a bigger gain to compensate.)


12-16-2009 16:18:47 UTC

It’s self-killed already…


12-16-2009 16:47:52 UTC

Yes, I’m warning in case someone tries to repropose.


12-16-2009 17:46:31 UTC

I wasn’t talking to you, ais523, I was talking to all those people who only included an against icon without stating their concerns.


12-16-2009 18:01:36 UTC

against (make a smartass comment, get a smartass answer)


12-16-2009 19:36:44 UTC

ais523, are you sure that’s true? I think the proposal explicitly overrules the generic “illegal value = illegal action” rule by stating that anything that would cause it to go under 0 or over 100 just pegs it to the appropriate end point.


12-16-2009 20:17:25 UTC

Darth: It isn’t s/ked; you voted DEF.

ais: What NOI said.


12-17-2009 00:27:45 UTC

I think it counts as s/k if the DEF counts as against, but I’m not sure. Also,  against