Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Proposal: The result of our conduct

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 20 Dec 2018 23:28:23 UTC

Create a new rule called “Character,” which contains the following:

A Character is a condition an Attorney can have that allows actions not otherwise permissible by the ruleset. Characters are gained only when an Attorney meets the prerequisites, and are automatically gained when they have done so. An Attorney can have only one Character at a time, and lose their current Character if they gain another, or if they no longer meet the prerequisites.  (At no point can two Characters have the same prerequisites; there must be some distinction.)
A list of Characters exists as follows:

Moral Paragon: Prerequisite: Have the highest Integrity of all active Attorneys -or- an Integrity of 10.
When typing a FOR icon in the comments of a case, your Party’s Guilt decreases by 3 instead of 2. Also, if your one of your Clients is determined to have lost a case, before any further steps of any atomic action are finished, decrease that Client’s Worth by 0.1% of its value and increase your Money by that same amount.

Devil’s Advocate: Prerequisite: Have the lowest Integrity of all active Attorneys -or- an Integrity of less than 2.
When typing an AGAINST icon in the comments of a case, your Party’s Guilt decreases by 2 instead of 1. Also, when you Launder money from your Slush Fund, you may, as a weekly action, make use of your Criminal Contacts by including a statement to that effect in your Laundering Post to double the value your Money is increased. (All other rules pertaining to Laundering are still followed as written.)

Savvy Marketer: Prerequisite: Have no other Character.
Take on a Client. You may take on new Clients if you have fewer than four instead of three.

Integrity doesn’t do enough, in my opinion. Hopefully, I didn’t make another gross oversight.

Comments

naught:

19-12-2018 17:29:26 UTC

Oh, except for the fact that this was supposed to be a Proposal. *facepalm*

naught:

19-12-2018 17:48:17 UTC

Nevermind, fixed it.

Kevan: he/him

19-12-2018 23:04:16 UTC

“A Character is a condition an Attorney can have that allows actions not otherwise permissible by the ruleset.” is a fine introduction, but can also be read as legally allowing players to break rules and do anything they like once they have a Character.

against

Trigon:

19-12-2018 23:33:24 UTC

against per Kevan

Zaphod:

20-12-2018 01:32:13 UTC

against
Since it looks like this one will need a re-write, double-check “Also, if your one of your Clients is determined to have lost a case”. Should that be “if you OR one of your Clients?”
Otherwise, though, I like the rule!

Kevan: he/him

20-12-2018 09:04:01 UTC

Some other issues here if this is being rewritten:

* Character needs to be tracked somewhere (probably a GNDT field).
* Gaining a Character automatically “when an Attorney meets the prerequisites” leaves us in a grey area when (as will happen instantly) a player meets the prerequisites for two different Characters.
* “When typing a FOR icon” is the wrong time to apply this effect; icons are resolved when the Judge Closes a Case, not when we type them. It’d probably be better if the Paragon/Advocate effects were written directly into the Closing a Case action.

Madrid:

20-12-2018 10:53:42 UTC

Unidle me please

naught:

20-12-2018 15:34:09 UTC

All of these are very good points, and I can see where the language might obfuscate the intended idea. I’d like to try again with another Proposal, but I think I might need to familiarize myself more with the “dialect” of rule-making before I do so. Next Dynasty, maybe.
against

Kevan: he/him

20-12-2018 18:09:53 UTC

Don’t worry about getting proposals 100% perfect - I think the reason we’re being particularly careful about this one is the big loophole in the first sentence. (And as you can see above, BlogNomic has some lurking players who will gladly smash through the wall and pull a scam lever if they think one has been enacted.)

Smaller problems can be fixed as we go. All the “when typing” stuff would have simply had no effect here, and could have been fixed (by whoever) in a later proposal.

naught:

20-12-2018 21:58:58 UTC

Gotcha. I’ll just have to be extra careful, then.