Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Proposal: Slightly modified

2-8. timed out. -Elias IX

Adminned at 18 Aug 2006 10:07:39 UTC

Add a new subrule entitled “The Knights of Uncertainty” to the Rule “Time Companies”.  Give it the following text:

Knights of Uncertainty
Leader: (Whatsisname) No current leader.
Rules: The Goal of the Knights is to put all other Travellers into Heisenberg Loops.  If they acheive their goal, then a randomly chosen Knight acheives victory and will probably reward the other Knights somehow next dynasty.  Whatsisname is chosen by consensus among the Knights, but if there doesn’t seem to be a consensus the Arbiter can choose someone.
Description: We stand for Freedom and Justice from… no, no; Justice and Freedom from…  wait, isn’t Ignorance supposed to be in there somewhere?  Hey Bob, how does our motto go again?

 

posted by Bucky at 16 Aug 2006 16:10:00 UTC Comments (13)

Comments

Hix:

16-08-2006 16:26:59 UTC

against This proposal failed less than 2 weeks ago, and I still think the VC is too easy.

Elias IX:

16-08-2006 17:07:49 UTC

imperial

aran:

16-08-2006 17:13:04 UTC

for sounds fun.

and about the vc: maybe we need to heavily cripple the knights (no Continuum Swirling or something like that, or maybe killing a knight won’t be a crime).

aran:

16-08-2006 17:13:27 UTC

for sounds fun.

and about the vc: maybe we need to heavily cripple the knights (no Continuum Swirling or something like that, or maybe killing a knight won’t be a crime).

Bucky:

17-08-2006 00:38:20 UTC

:Or just some method of removing Loops.

Kevan: he/him

17-08-2006 01:09:10 UTC

against

epylar:

17-08-2006 08:05:24 UTC

against

Thelonious:

17-08-2006 09:41:44 UTC

against

Tesla4D:

18-08-2006 00:24:24 UTC

imperial

epylar:

18-08-2006 01:02:53 UTC

(Not a vote, not related to the proposal, feel free to skip reading this.)

“If a Traveller casts more than one Vote on a Proposal, only the most recent of those Votes is counted.”

So, if I had a for and an against in the same post, would they both be counted, neither, or would it simply be an invalid post?  (I realize this is essentially either scamming or just being annoying, and don’t intend to do it, but it’s an interesting question, I suppose, if you enjoy probing sentences for loopholes.)

Kevan: he/him

18-08-2006 06:06:16 UTC

We’ve always interpreted the vote that appears later in the comment as being the “most recent”. I suppose rewording to “furthest down on the page” wouldn’t hurt.

The Lone Amigo:

18-08-2006 06:45:05 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

18-08-2006 13:04:18 UTC

against