Saturday, January 08, 2022

Proposal: Say Cheese

Fewer than quorum not voting against. (2 FOR, 4 AGAINST, 8 total players.) Failed by TyGuy6.

Adminned at 10 Jan 2022 07:21:13 UTC

Replace the second sentence of the Parking Effects for Kiosks with “A Parker may pay 4 Coins to generate a Disposable Camera and acquire it.”

Replace the requirement “They have in their posession a Souvenier from the Attraction Stop they wish to Drive to” from the rule “Roadside Attractions” with “They have in their posession a Souveneir named Disposable Camera” and append to the end of the final paragraph of the rule “Roadside Attractions” the text “When a Tripper generates a Souvenier this way, the Tripper loses an instance of a Souvenier named Disposable Camera.”

If Proposal: Get In Lane passes, replace the first sentence of this proposal with “Add a new Parking Effect named “Information Booth” with its effect defined as “A Parker may pay 4 Coins to generate a Disposable Camera and acquire it.”

Throwing my suggestion out there for the Great Kiosk Debacle of 2022. I think this stops any “scams” while still basically preserving the purpose of Kiosks.

Comments

TyGuy6:

08-01-2022 04:05:54 UTC

There’s no rule “Kiosks”. Maybe say “second sentence of the Parking Effects for Kiosk Stops”?

Also note that Kiosks may be on their way out, seeing as https://blognomic.com/archive/get_in_lane currently has 3:1 votes in favor. You *could* add a clause here to undo that removal, or you could just count on it not passing.

Clucky: he/him

08-01-2022 08:25:54 UTC

This proposal raises a somewhat interesting question about how proposals are resolved

I always resolve proposals in a top down order. Meaning “If Proposal: Get In Lane passes, replace the first sentence of this proposal with” doesn’t really do anything because you’ve already processed the first line so if you replace it then it doesn’t do anything.

But I’m actually not sure where in the rules it says proposals are resolved that way. Instead we just get “its stated effects are immediately applied in full”

Seems to me we might have a core rules scam hanging out there where someone could legally apply the effects of a proposal in a non-standard order to achieve an unexpected result.

Clucky: he/him

08-01-2022 08:41:15 UTC

as far as the actual rule goes… I think this is actually more broken than Kiosks

Kiosks, if there are just two buddies, unless you wanna stretch the rules you need to visit two roadside attractions which means you need two souvenirs from different roadside attractions.

With this, while at you now need one disposable cameras per selfies (and so need 3 instead of 2) I think the way its worded Buddy 1, who has a camera, can still drive Buddy 2 there. Then Buddy 2 generates a selfie, no-ops the “loses an instance of a Souvenier named Disposable Camera” line because they do not have a Souvenier named Disposable Camera. Then Buddy 1 hands their Souvenier off to Buddy 2 and they can also create a selfie, and now they still have their Disposable Camera to drive to the next stop with

So now you only need one camera to get you and a buddy all three selfies instead of two. Seems like a step in the wrong direciton.

Josh: Observer he/they

08-01-2022 22:07:49 UTC

against per Clucky.

Kevan: he/him

09-01-2022 16:40:25 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

10-01-2022 02:23:38 UTC

for I like rewarding actually making alliances.

TyGuy6:

10-01-2022 06:53:57 UTC

against per Clucky.

Clucky: he/him

10-01-2022 07:07:11 UTC

against