Monday, March 20, 2006

total ruleset overhaul

I’ve spent a little time completely rewriting the Ruleset in a way that means mostly the same thing but is laid out in a logical linear fashion, to avoid law-based loopholes.  I’d like it if people criticized my version of the ruleset (found at the wiki here).  I’m well aware it needs some serious reordering, but comment on any changes you’d like to see made to it, or if you think the whole concept of it is a bad idea.

If it seems solid, I’d like to fork it off somewhere else (or maybe find a way to run it in parallel with the current Ruleset in a way that it can’t affect the Gamestate, and have people throw it around a little bit, put it through trial by fire).


Angry Grasshopper:

03-21-2006 01:39:51 UTC

Looks like you’ve put some work into the Atomica set. ;)

I haven’t got any criticism for you yet—I quickly read over it—but will have some for you later, possibly after I admin some proposals.


03-21-2006 05:16:01 UTC



03-21-2006 05:27:16 UTC

In other words, I’d be happy to break it for you.


03-21-2006 13:35:36 UTC

For example, would it be possible to ceto or self-kill a proposal after it becomes passed?  Or to pass a failled proposal or CfJ after it is enacted by getting several players to change their vote?  If so, would the proposal or CfJ be passed and failed at the same time?

I guess this is purely academic since proposals don’t change the gamestate anyway.


03-21-2006 16:27:17 UTC

It’s quite unreadable in my wiki settings—is it supposed to be a bulletted list?


03-21-2006 21:51:52 UTC

I don’t like the “atomic” format.


03-21-2006 21:52:11 UTC

I don’t like the “atomic” format.


03-22-2006 19:14:32 UTC

I started reading it, but I am in the middle of the smith ruleset and I don’t want to influence my version yet. I hope to be done in a day or two.


03-23-2006 18:30:12 UTC

Go ahead, start a parallel meadynasty.  I’ll be glad to see if I can break it more.

Angry Grasshopper:

03-23-2006 20:52:56 UTC

Why are you so obsessed with breaking things, Bucky? It’s like yin and yang—can’t have constant destruction without at least a little bit of construction.

Why not help fix problems, instead of ‘breaking’ them?