Friday, May 12, 2006

Proposal: Story Posts unlimited

2-2.  Timed out, failed by Excalabur.

I get the feeling that some people are due for idles, but haven’t been paying enough attention to find out.

Adminned at 14 May 2006 20:00:58 UTC

Reword the rule entitled “Story Posts” to:

A Story Post is a post to the Blog with a title containing “Story Post:” followed by a unique description string. The post itsself should describe an event or series of events within the Monastery. When possible, these events should be consistant with the GNDT state at some past or present time.  The Story Post may also specify some changes to any part(s) of the Gamestate besides the Ruleset.  In addition, a Story Post by the Abbot may specify changes to the rule entitled “Movement”, if such a rule exists.

If the Abbot approves of a Story Post, e should respond to the Story Post with a comment containing a for within 48 hours.  E then update the Gamestate to reflect what happened in the Story Post.  Story Posts by the Abbot do not require approval.

Any Monk may make a Story Post once per forty-eight hours.  The Abbot can make a Story Post whenever e wants.

The old version of this rule is worded for an Abbot-only power.  The term “Story Post” is badly defined since it’s not clear whether or not having the Abbot as the author was part of the definition.  It also doesn’t allow Story Posts by ordinary Monks to change the Map, even though in my opinion it should.  Since there’s very little useful Gamestate outside the Map and the GNDT, the new wording doesn’t grant much more power than the old one, although it allows a Story Post by a Monk to change the number of Suspicious Monks and the Veto Icon.


Elias IX:

13-05-2006 19:36:28 UTC

imperial, because I am one indecisive Monk.


14-05-2006 11:58:30 UTC

imperial That makes two of us.


14-05-2006 21:00:04 UTC

against COV just so this won’t be enacted 1-0. Anyone care to actually vote on this?


14-05-2006 21:31:57 UTC



15-05-2006 00:36:12 UTC

I’m not that crass.  I’m worried that now someone else will fail it 1-2!

Anyone else voting on this?


15-05-2006 01:34:25 UTC