Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Proposal: The formalization of Ibiza

Undid an edit that was done after votes were cast on the proposal, which is in violation of rule 3.2
Reached quorum 7-1, enacted by card.

Adminned at 14 Jul 2017 15:28:29 UTC

If and only if “Ibiza” exists, do the following:
Add to the rule “Ibiza”:

For row n and column k in the grid of squares, the location shall be known as (n-4,k-4). For example, the top left corner would be (-3,-3), and the bottom right corner would be (3,3). The location of explorers defaults to (0,0), and is tracked in the GNDT.

Within “Ibiza” add a section “Ibiza Town”:

Ibiza Town is located at (0,0). It is the default spawn point.

Within the “Keywords” section, add:

    On locations (n-1, k), (n, k-1), (n+1, k), (n, k+1), where (n, k) is the position of the relevant object. If some locations are nonexistent in Ibiza, ignore them


Edit 1: Forgot to put in proposal section.
Edit 2: “Locations” in place of “Positions”



07-12-2017 22:15:22 UTC

Explain opposition if opposed to.


07-12-2017 22:15:46 UTC

Also planning stuff for Ibiza Town.


07-12-2017 22:40:44 UTC

Very appreciated. Something like this was needed imo.


07-12-2017 23:52:03 UTC



07-12-2017 23:52:37 UTC



07-13-2017 05:16:24 UTC

My opposition is:
1 The keywords section of the Appendix probably shouldn’t be used in that way, it’s more for Dynasty spanning terms and language clarifications.
2 Since your proposal lacks the Appendix tag, even if it were enacted the Adjacent definition   won’t be added to the ruleset.

Also I’m unsure if the word “object” would apply to locations.


07-13-2017 08:51:58 UTC


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:

07-13-2017 09:54:45 UTC



07-13-2017 10:56:30 UTC



07-13-2017 12:03:23 UTC

for Quoruming


07-14-2017 12:33:05 UTC

BTW, the conditional “If and only if “Ibiza” exists, do the following:” is probably moot, as Ibiza does, indeed, exist.
(Source: )

I agree with Card that the definition of Adjacent shouldn’t be part of the Appendix, but that can be fixed in a latter Proposal.

Card said:

Since your proposal lacks the Appendix tag

And at the time I write this comment, your Proposal does not lack the Appendix tag.

This is most likely in violation of the “Gamestate Tracking” rule:

An official post may be altered by its author if it is less than six hours old and either no Pactmaker has commented on it or (if it is a Votable Matter) if all comments on it contain no voting icons; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.