Friday, July 21, 2006

Proposal: Time Vactions Redux

Timed out, failed 3-4.—Kevan

Adminned at 23 Jul 2006 07:10:51 UTC

This proposal failed last time due to the PRC influence problems that have now been fixed:

Add a new Dynastic Rule to the Ruleset called “Time Vacations”.  Give it the following text:

If a Traveller has 10 influence, they may decrease eir influence by 10 to purchase a ticket (GNDT tracked) to any vacationable TL.  A vacationable TL must not contain a Perilous Node Event, and must not be before the year -15000 or after the year 6000. While they have this ticket, they may change eir TL to eir ticket TL, or to 2235/8/14.  When a traveller travels to 2235/8/14, they must remove all eir tickets.  Travellers must announce in the weblog whenever their ticket value changes.

And add a new subrule to the “The Laws of time”

Restrictions on Time Vacations
Travellers may not modify any node event if they have a ticket.

When this proposal passes, create a Node Event in the time line at 2235/8/14 with the description: “Warner TimeTravel Agency TimePort accepting incoming Travellers” with the tags:
[Perilous],[Time Travel],[TimePort]

If more than half the valid votes voting either for or against contain the text “less is more”, then replace all instances of “10 influence” with “5 influence” in this rule.

posted by kaddar at 21 Jul 2006 13:59:00 UTC Comments (7)

Comments

kaddar:

21-07-2006 14:06:06 UTC

I wasn’t sure if this should be a modus ponens rule.

ChronosPhaenon:

21-07-2006 14:34:25 UTC

against

Thelonious:

21-07-2006 15:21:49 UTC

against just because I don’t like the rule.

Note also that your last paragraph could cause problems.  I could make several votes on this proposal, each one of them being valid.  However, only 1 of them will count.  That’s why we use the phrase “counting vote” for this type of thing.  That said, if you keep a close eye on things then you’re probably safe to leave it as it is - resorting to an S-K+repropose if you see the loophole being abused.

Bucky:

21-07-2006 16:52:21 UTC

for  against
Less is More.

Angry Grasshopper:

21-07-2006 17:22:08 UTC

I think the word ‘valid’ leaves enough room to interpret intent.

for, because I like the idea.

Saki:

22-07-2006 00:05:53 UTC

for
I don’t believe it belongs in the Modus Penons. It seems like something larger, and deserves a place of its own.

Kevan: he/him

22-07-2006 03:45:16 UTC

against For the more-than-half.