Sunday, September 02, 2007

Proposal: Threatening Monsters, Take Two

Reaches Quorum (7-0)
Enacted by Hix

Adminned at 03 Sep 2007 08:07:58 UTC

If the Proposal: “One wing wasn’t even enough” passed, repeal the sub-rule it created.

Add the following sub-rule to Rule 2.1, entitled Attributes:

On each monster e helps to create, each Kaiju God may select a single physical feature suggested by their 500 x 250 pixel section. These three physical attributes will be listed on that Monster’s wiki page. Each attribute is a combination of one, two, or three words describing that attribute, all in lower case.

Each attribute has a value, known as its threat rating. An attribute’s initial threat rating is derived by putting each word of the attribute individually into Google and adding the number of results for each. A Monster’s initial overall threat rating is the sum of the threat rating for each of its attributes.

Tokyo may remove or replace any attribute that e thinks is unfair, inaccurate, unjustified or misleading. Alternatively, such attributes may be challenged by a Call for Judgment.


fire 334,000,000
breath 65,800,000
threat: 399,000,000

radioactive 23,500,000
green 463,000,000
tentacles 3,450,000
threat: 490,053,000

I personally think that ‘radioactive green tentacles’ would be perceived by the army to be a much larger threat than just plain old ‘tentacles’. Also, that would level the playing field a bit in all directions—certainly, a ‘green’ monster might garner a 463 million point threat level, if for no other virtue than its being a green monster. But a power player (even one playing for low points rather than high) would have less of a reason to either choose or disavow the ‘radioactive green tentacles’ based only on its points (which by the previous rule would only be 103 thousand points).

Besides, with the previous rule, I had this vision of people running in fear of a green monster, but laughing at loud at a similar monster with radioactive green tentacles, and I can’t imagine any Kaiju God would stand for that, considering the work and long hours they put into creating the menace to begin with.

Also, I thought about tying the current rating to Google, but though it’s a creative way to derive an initial value, Google won’t properly reflect the gamestate. An individual monster, after ravaging half of the island, would probably be considered a higher threat than a new monster, even if they both have ‘silly shark teeth’. Therefore, I think a monster’s current threat level should probably change over time, according to in-game actions by the monster, army, or other Kaiju Gods.




02-09-2007 21:28:22 UTC

ok, this is the real proposal :)


02-09-2007 21:39:28 UTC

for I like it this way.  Attributes determine the initial threat level, and the Kaiju’s actions determine how that level changes over time.

Kevan: he/him

02-09-2007 21:59:51 UTC

This is an illegal proposal, because you already had two active proposals.


02-09-2007 22:11:27 UTC

No, it’s not, I self-killed both of them before proposing this one.


02-09-2007 22:26:54 UTC

Looking at the time stamps, looks like one was self-killed at 09-02-2007 21:10:57 UTC, but the other at 09-02-2007 21:22:24 UTC. So technically, for 24 seconds, I had one other proposal active. But since I did not yet have three proposals posted that day, and only one was active, it’s still valid.

Kevan: he/him

02-09-2007 22:31:00 UTC

No - proposals remain pending until an admin passes or fails them. Even if you self-kill your proposal, you have to wait for the queue to be processed and your proposal to be failed.


02-09-2007 23:02:13 UTC

Kevan:  Yes, the proposals remain pending until the queue is processed in order, but the restriction on number of proposals pending at a time per Kaiju God does not count self-killed proposals.


03-09-2007 00:55:28 UTC

Sounds good. for


03-09-2007 01:09:54 UTC

I like this better.  for


03-09-2007 01:40:16 UTC


Kevan: he/him

03-09-2007 08:42:48 UTC

Oh, okay, that rule change must have come in while I was idle. Sorry Aaron.

Kevan: he/him

03-09-2007 10:02:12 UTC


Amnistar: he/him

03-09-2007 14:56:26 UTC

yea, that was spurned on by my attempts to have a “edit” proposal, it was about…4 months ago or so