Friday, July 15, 2011

taser should actually do something

In Rule 2.9, change

Taser. Can be used to Attack any Gladiator who is adjacent to the Attacker. The Attacked Gladiator’s AP are set to zero.


Taser. Can be used to Attack any Gladiator who is adjacent to the Attacker. The Attacked Gladiator Refreshes if possible and then his AP are set to zero and.



16-07-2011 01:56:54 UTC

for when proposal


16-07-2011 06:40:16 UTC

Even when proposal against due to mid-sentence-end-of-Rule. (and what?)

Also, refering to a rule by number. Not because I have actually seen a scam that used that, but because at least one of my proposal was voted down due to the number-refering.


16-07-2011 09:01:58 UTC

Referring to a rule by number is fine when it specifies replacement text. It’s stuff like “replace the second paragraph of rule 2.1” that’s dangerous.


18-07-2011 03:03:33 UTC

No it isn’t, you can still make the proposal a no-op by getting it to edit the wrong rule. (That’s how the win in the Mornington Crescent dynasty managed to keep a broken rule around for long enough to exploit it.)

Kevan: HE/HIM

18-07-2011 12:41:45 UTC

[ais523] That only worked using a now-patched core ruleset scam (of an admin choosing to interpret “enact a new rule” as “enact a new rule at the top of the dynastic rules to throw off all the numbering so that the next proposal is a no-op”). There’s no reason to think it more likely that a lurking, unknown scam will be better at messing up the rule numbers than messing up rule names.

It is much easier to accidentally refer to the wrong rule, though, when you’re using numbers.


18-07-2011 12:57:46 UTC

[Kevan]: Are you saying that refering to the rules by numbers is no more dangerous than by name and that the only reason everyone frowns upon it is that there might be some transposed digits?

Kevan: HE/HIM

18-07-2011 13:10:49 UTC

[mideg] I suppose there’s also the chance that an older proposal will repeal a rule, potentially bumping down the number of a rule which a later proposal is trying to amend, so maybe it makes sense if people tend to avoid using numbers. But I can’t see why anybody would vote down a proposal that used numbers.