Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Proposal: Vidory!

Adminned at 12 Aug 2010 11:41:28 UTC

Create a new core rule entitled “Terms of Success”, which will contain several subrules.

Create a subrule of “Terms of Success” entitled “Ultimate Operative” which says:

A citizen who is a member of The Secret Police achieves victory if his home sector is WIN, he has 0 Treason points, has 0 Perversity Points, and has a clearance of ULTRAVIOLET.

Create a subrule of “Terms of Success” entitled “Secret Invader” which says:

A citizen who is a member of The Alien Subversives achieves victory if his home sector is WIN, he has 0 Treason points, has 8 or more Perversity Points, and has a clearance of ULTRAVIOLET.

Create a subrule of “Terms of Success” entitled “Rebel Assault” which says:

A citizen who is a member of The Rebel Usurpers achieves victory if his home sector is WIN, he has 5 Treason points, has 0 Perversity Points, and has a clearance of ULTRAVIOLET.

Create a subrule of “Terms of Victory” entitled “The Godfather” which says:

A citizen who is a member of The Criminal Underground achieves victory if his home sector is WIN, he has 5 Treason points, has 8 or more Perversity Points, and has a clearance of ULTRAVIOLET.

If the majority of votes on this proposal include the phrase “Equality First”, then drop the clearance levels of all citizens other than the High-Programmer with a clearance of ULTRAVIOLET or VIOLET to INDIGO and the clearance levels of all citizens with a clearance of INDIGO to BLUE.

Comments

Bucky:

11-08-2010 03:08:04 UTC

against .  ULTRAVIOLET citizens are above Treason.

Wakukee:

11-08-2010 03:13:35 UTC

for

Wakukee:

11-08-2010 03:21:28 UTC

CoV for Equality First

scshunt:

11-08-2010 03:35:48 UTC

for Equality First

jmrdex:

11-08-2010 04:01:24 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

11-08-2010 04:04:15 UTC

against Equality First

lilomar:

11-08-2010 04:30:30 UTC

against Per Bucky
Equality First

Kevan: he/him

11-08-2010 08:04:08 UTC

against

ais523:

11-08-2010 11:06:27 UTC

against Equality First

Discriminates massively against people in no society, as they would be incapable of winning. Also looks like it’s achievable very quickly, especially if another CoC scam is found.

Purplebeard:

11-08-2010 11:43:10 UTC

against

Keba:

11-08-2010 12:24:41 UTC

against A Core Rule?

Keba:

11-08-2010 12:45:05 UTC

Besides, “If the majority of votes” should be “If the majority of the EVCs” as Votes are just FOR, AGAINST etc. A Vote cannot contain a phrase, the comment of the Vote (the EVC) can do so of course.

ais523:

11-08-2010 13:08:55 UTC

@Keba: Good point. Why is this proposed as core rather than dynastic?

jmrdex:

11-08-2010 13:13:44 UTC

against
Can’t have that be core.

flurie:

11-08-2010 14:41:42 UTC

against

lilomar:

11-08-2010 15:30:59 UTC

Why is this core? I missed that completely my first time reading.
veto
Leaving it open for comments for now.

Darknight: he/him

11-08-2010 23:04:21 UTC

Why are we even messing with the core rules to begin with in this dynasty? The way they are, or were, didn’t cause any trouble in all the time I’ve been playing.

scshunt:

11-08-2010 23:24:17 UTC

Because nomic has a long tradition of “if it ain’t broke, it absolutely needs fixing”.

Also, because a proposal was adopted allowing people to propose a third proposal to amend the Core Rules with, so as to adjust the framework of the game as BN sees fit without interfering with the dynasty in progress.

Wakukee:

12-08-2010 03:06:06 UTC

Misfired by saying core rule, meant dynastic. : |.  against