Thursday, November 03, 2011

Proposal: Synergy

Times out 7-6 which means it’s enacted. -coppro

Adminned at 05 Nov 2011 15:08:31 UTC

REPRESENTING: coppro, southpointingchariot

In today’s economy, employers should maximize the use they make of their employees, and the best way to do so is by thinking outside of the box and using core competencies to create quality driven proposals.  Therefore, create a new rule titled “Synergy”:

As a Weekly Action for each employee, any Player can create a Dynastic Proposal Synergizing with one of their employees, transferring 1 SP to that employee and starting the title of the Proposal with “[SYNERGY: X]”, where X is the employee’s name.  Such a Proposal is known as a Synergy Proposal.  For the purpose of counting pending proposals, a Synergy Proposal is treated as if it were posted by the specified employee.

The title should ensure these are easy to count properly (even in the Pending Proposals list).  southpointingchariot pointed out on IRC that if an employer and employee are working on a proposal at the same time, it’s possible that they’ll both submit and one of the proposals will be illegal, but I think this is relatively unlikely, and the illegal proposal can just be resubmitted later.

Comments

scshunt:

03-11-2011 23:33:44 UTC

for

Spitemaster:

04-11-2011 00:50:25 UTC

for

Pavitra:

04-11-2011 01:17:49 UTC

for ahahahaha

southpointingchariot:

04-11-2011 01:55:28 UTC

for  arrow  arrow  arrow  arrow

Bucky:

04-11-2011 04:35:29 UTC

against  because I don’t see the point (even after multiple readings).  Notably, it still cannot be made if its real author has 2 pending proposals

arthexis: he/him

04-11-2011 05:10:56 UTC

for

arthexis: he/him

04-11-2011 05:11:13 UTC

I voted FOR because it was funny.

Clucky: he/him

04-11-2011 06:03:30 UTC

against what Bucky said. What difference does this really make?

Prince Anduril:

04-11-2011 08:26:02 UTC

against Just because this makes the game too much like my job already.

omd:

04-11-2011 08:35:56 UTC

The clause about counting pending proposals is intended to affect this clause:

> (unless the Player already has 2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day).

Why do you think it wouldn’t?

ChronosPhaenon:

04-11-2011 12:26:51 UTC

against

SingularByte: he/him

04-11-2011 17:08:53 UTC

against

ais523:

04-11-2011 19:21:45 UTC

against I don’t get the point of this.

flurie:

04-11-2011 20:16:10 UTC

for