Monday, August 10, 2015

Proposal: The House Always Wins

Yet Another 5-0 Enactment. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 11 Aug 2015 06:59:45 UTC

Add the following to the rule entitled Corporate Defence:

As a daily action, a Hacker may, on behalf of their Corp Name, Investigate a Codename, provided that they are not currently carrying out another such Investigation.

In order to commence an Investigation, the Hacker must expend at least 1 from the Defence Score of their Corp Name, and must then make a Story Post whose title starts with the word “Investigation:”, and which specifies a single Codename, and the Hacker who they believe owns that Codename.

A Hacker may resolve an Investigation at any point, provided that it is not sooner than 25 hours minus 1 hour for each point of Defence Score spent to initiate that Investigation after it has been initially posted. To resolve an Investigation, the Hacker must comment to the Investigation Post to the effect that the Investigation is complete. They may then remove the Codename from the GNDT; any subroutines it had in its Tool or Secrets it had accumulated are lost.

Add the following as a subrule to the rule called Denizens, entitled Retirement:

At any time, a Hacker may chose to Retire a Codename that they control. Retired Codenames are signified in the GNDT by having the name of the Hacker who controlled them in the “Hacker” field. A Retired Codename is not considered to be a Codename for any other dynastic rule unless explicitly stated.

When the going gets tough, the smart get out.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

10-08-2015 21:12:44 UTC

for No such thing as a “Hacker” field, though?

Josh: Observer he/they

10-08-2015 21:36:06 UTC

I think it can be created as a result of that rule existing. “Actions that change gamestate directly (defined in other rules) can normally be performed simply by applying their effects to the GNDT, which updates the gamestate accordingly” and “Actions that change gamestate directly (defined in other rules) can normally be performed simply by applying their effects to the GNDT, which updates the gamestate accordingly”

I accept that it’s automagical and that’s bad but I take personal responsibility for adding the GNDT field if the enacting admin doesn’t.

Josh: Observer he/they

10-08-2015 21:37:22 UTC

That second quote should have been “The GNDT merely represents the Gamestate, and is not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and the GNDT are different, any Hacker may correct the GNDT to comply with the Gamestate.”

Kevan: he/him

10-08-2015 22:21:29 UTC

Oh, true enough, “signified in the GNDT” is more than clear.

Winner:

10-08-2015 23:39:55 UTC

for

ShareDVI:

11-08-2015 05:40:39 UTC

Looks clean for

Purplebeard:

11-08-2015 06:56:53 UTC

for