Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Proposal: Rocket redux

2-12. Can’t reach quorum without a CoV. - Elias IX

Adminned at 15 Mar 2006 13:23:31 UTC

Add a new item to the list in the rule entitled “Movement” which reads as follows:

All Gostaks have Dosh-powered Rockets.  Occasionally, each Gostak may destroy any amount of eir Distimmed Dosh between 1 and the amount of Distimmed Dosh e has (inclusive).  E then moves up DICEX Floors, where X is the square root of twice the amount of Dosh E destroyed, rounding down.  If this would put em on the 13th Floor or above the 1st Floor, or if e is in Hell, the Rocket malfunctions and e does not move.

Add the following text to the end of the rule entitled “Distimming”:

Any Gostak who has some Distimmed Dosh may give one of eir Distimmed Dosh to another Gostak at any time.

I might as well try…

If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the text “Down with Bucky”, then add the following text to the end of law 1.9:

Any Gostak named Bucky has acheived victory and may declare victory at any time, and this sentence supercedes any rule which contradicts it.

posted by Bucky at 14 Mar 2006 03:39:31 UTC Comments (19)

Comments

Hix:

14-03-2006 04:50:02 UTC

against again.

Personman:

14-03-2006 05:30:38 UTC

against I might’ve voted for this were the “Down w/ Bucky” bit not there. Actually, that’s a lie - they make it too easy to go up floors, i think. To my mind, reaching the first floor is a meta-dynasty-long prospect, not something one can do overnight. But the whole trying pointlessly to win is a bit obnoxious, especially tacked on to an otherwise decent proposal.

Bucky:

14-03-2006 06:05:19 UTC

You don’t have to support the last bit.  In fact, I expect everyone else to oppose it.  In further fact, I’m note sure why it’s there in the first place ;)

Banja:

14-03-2006 06:56:20 UTC

The shiny demon made me do it. Honest!

Shadowclaw:

14-03-2006 10:12:52 UTC

against

Kevan: Concierge he/him

14-03-2006 12:28:55 UTC

against Voting against purely because I wouldn’t want anyone to win with less than quorum’s support.

predisastered:

14-03-2006 14:30:12 UTC

against

Rodney:

14-03-2006 19:46:38 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

14-03-2006 20:58:21 UTC

Kevan, have we determined a victory condition yet?

As far as I’m aware, there is no game mechanic that involves the first floor.

Regarding movement, I don’t see any contradictions in adding new rules.

for

Pangolin:

14-03-2006 22:17:06 UTC

against

Elias IX:

14-03-2006 22:18:22 UTC

against

Kevan: Concierge he/him

14-03-2006 22:59:57 UTC

Grasshopper - I mean Bucky’s unrelated “I win!” addendum, if you’d missed that bit. The rocket thing’s fine.

Ralff:

14-03-2006 23:10:55 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

15-03-2006 00:07:10 UTC

Ah, yes, Kevan, that bit.

smith:

15-03-2006 00:54:16 UTC

against yes, i might have considered it, but the victory addendum is a deterrent

Bucky:

15-03-2006 03:16:25 UTC

Why is everyone so against this?  <em>The victory bit is unrelated to everything else!  This proposal could easily pass without the victory bit if everyone who voted AGAINST decided to vote   for  but oppose the victory condition.  As is, I see neither for s nor “Down with Bucky"s

smith:

15-03-2006 18:42:54 UTC

Bucky, I think this is a message we are sending you. Even if the victory clause has no chance of succeeding it is an annoying addition. Why add it? It makes the proposal more complex for no reason. There is also the chance that it is a scam… ALL votes that say ‘Down with Bucky’—not just votes on this proposal. hmmm?

Purplebeard:

15-03-2006 18:58:35 UTC

against

90000:

15-03-2006 21:22:21 UTC

against