Sunday, October 21, 2007

Proposal: To Bare or Not to Bare

Failed 2-8 (cannot be enacted without CoV).  Brendan

Adminned at 22 Oct 2007 11:37:12 UTC

If the Proposal You Are In The Village fails, this proposal does nothing.

In Rule 2.1.1 replace the sentence

Zahndorf has a one-person gaol cell in an annex of the town hall. If a Villager is given the Occupation “Prisoner” (as a result of a Town Meeting, or other means), that means that they are imprisoned in this cell.

with

Zahndorf has a one-person gaol cell in an annex of the town hall. If a Villager is given the Occupation “Prisoner” (as a result of a Town Meeting, or other means), that means that they are imprisoned in this cell and that the hairiness of their back becomes public knowledge and this is tracked by the GNDT.

and change the sentence in Rule 2.8:

The status of having a Hairy Back shall not be tracked in the GNDT

to

The status of having a Hairy Back shall not be tracked in the GNDT unless the status has become public knowledge as per rule 2.1.1.

posted by Igthorn at 21 Oct 2007 15:16:00 UTC Comments (9)

Comments

Kevan: Concierge he/him

21-10-2007 15:50:38 UTC

against A nice link between two mechanics, but I don’t think that this merits an extra GNDT field, and the prison mechanic seems redundant when a Town Meeting could just as easily demand to see a given villager’s back, as to imprison them.

Brendan: he/him

21-10-2007 16:36:08 UTC

for Because I’d like to be able to just hit the GNDT and do a quick review of probabilities.

Darknight: he/him

21-10-2007 19:52:40 UTC

imperial I can see both points of what you two bring up. So I’m an IMP vote

Shadowclaw:

21-10-2007 19:52:52 UTC

against

Chivalrybean:

21-10-2007 20:16:25 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

21-10-2007 21:26:38 UTC

against

aaronwinborn:

21-10-2007 21:54:40 UTC

imperial should be something like “The status of having a Hairy Back shall not be tracked in the GNDT unless the status has, by the effect of another rule, become public knowledge.”

Hix:

22-10-2007 14:36:42 UTC

I’m on the fence mechanics-wise, but referring to a rule by number pushes me toward against

Rodney:

22-10-2007 18:30:25 UTC

against