Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Proposal: The Buddy System

3-8 against. timed out, failed.  Excalabur.

Adminned at 26 Jan 2006 17:48:33 UTC

Add a new clause to the rule Dueling:

===The Buddy System===

Two or more Swashbucklers may form a Band, if all Swashbucklers consent, by posting notice on the front page. A Swashbuckler may be a member of one one Band at a time. Any Swashbuckler may leave eir Band by posting notice to the front page.

If a Swashbuckler is fighting a Duel that e did not initiate in a Location in which other members of eir Band are present, the initiator of the Duel must roll against the sum of all GPS scores of those Band members present.

Example: Pirate A is dueling against Pirate B, who is in a Band with Pirates C and D. C and D are in the same Location as B. For the purposes of that Duel, A must treat B’s GPS score as the sum of B’s, C’s, and D’s GPS.

I wonder if The Lone Amigo will vote yes on this? ;)

posted by Angry Grasshopper at 24 Jan 2006 20:00:33 UTC Comments (20)

Comments

Elias IX:

24-01-2006 21:25:00 UTC

Only if all Swashbucklers consent?

I’ll have to see which way this swings before I vote.

Angry Grasshopper:

24-01-2006 21:43:35 UTC

Hrm, that’s a little ambiguous. I read the language as ‘all in the Band’, but that language isn’t very clear and should be re-written if we pass this.

predisastered:

24-01-2006 23:12:58 UTC

against

smith:

24-01-2006 23:46:35 UTC

for

Hix:

24-01-2006 23:52:47 UTC

imperial

The Lone Amigo:

25-01-2006 01:20:07 UTC

against

Yarr, t’language be more t’an a bit amiguable.

Excalabur:

25-01-2006 03:27:51 UTC

against We’re all in the same band of pirates, here..

This is a dynamic I don’t think flows in the right direction.

Kevan: he/him

25-01-2006 07:38:07 UTC

against Arr, this be ambiguous, and also difficult to keep track of without a GNDT field.

Elias IX:

25-01-2006 12:48:14 UTC

Arrr, no more o’ that GNDT!

Well… ye probably be right in that.

for, but maybe needs a rewrite.

Elias IX:

25-01-2006 12:48:28 UTC

CoV against

Tagone:

25-01-2006 19:23:25 UTC

imperial I be going with the cap’n on this one.

mes27:

25-01-2006 21:35:33 UTC

imperial

ChronosPhaenon:

25-01-2006 21:39:41 UTC

imperial

Igthorn:

25-01-2006 23:04:35 UTC

for

Angry Grasshopper:

26-01-2006 02:05:52 UTC

Hrm, doesn’t seem likely to pass in this incarnation. How many of you voting against would vote for with amended language?

Kevan: he/him

26-01-2006 02:15:31 UTC

Arr, I think it be needing a GNDT field - having to remember which bands exist (or having to read through a load of old blog entries to make sure you know exactly who joined and left which band and when) be madness. Madness, I tell ye!

Excalabur:

26-01-2006 04:45:08 UTC

I just don’t like the idea of ‘factions’ on a pirate ship.  We’ve got enough problems.

I’d rather have this be an individual dynasty…

Angry Grasshopper:

26-01-2006 04:47:37 UTC

Excalabur: I understand your objection. I was wondering if anybody else was in favor of the idea but didn’t like the loose language. =)

Kevan: he/him

26-01-2006 11:50:45 UTC

Arr, I like the idea, and think it should probably allow multiple-combatant attacks, as well. How else would a crew of 1-GPS pirates enforce a mutiny?

Elias IX:

26-01-2006 12:56:12 UTC

for if ‘twas amended.

against only because o’ the ambiguity.

for if there remained a way for the Captain to keep order, as well.

But for now,  against.