Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Proposal: Wealth beyond measure III

S-K by alethiophile.—Chronos

Adminned at 07 Feb 2007 09:27:17 UTC

Add a new rule called Wealth:

Each Actor has a Wealth number tracked in the GNDT. Wealth is measured in X units.

All comments containing counted For votes should also contain a nomination for the unit. The nomination that is mentioned most will replace “X units” when this Proposal is enacted. If there is a tie, the winner is decided at the discretion of the Investor.
Notice the “counted for votes”. I’ve noticed that there are a lot of people who are not trustworthy in the interpretation of rules.

posted by alethiophile at 06 Feb 2007 00:51:00 UTC Comments (23)

Comments

peacefulwarrior:

06-02-2007 01:10:53 UTC

for I like this idea, though I feel that wealth should be tied to fame somehow, although not necessarily in direct proportion—possibly involving scandal as well.  These three variables tend to be connected in a star’s life.

peacefulwarrior:

06-02-2007 01:50:38 UTC

Oh yeah—my unit idea is “semollions”.

viewtyjoe:

06-02-2007 02:24:39 UTC

for
ZOLLARS!!!

Clucky: he/him

06-02-2007 02:43:39 UTC

against This still has the problem that people who do not want the proposal totally lose out, because they cannot vote on what the currency is called <_<

ChinDoGu:

06-02-2007 04:51:13 UTC

against Oh for crying out loud, hes completly missed the point.  Counted VOTES.  Everyone should have a say in the unit even if they dont want it.

Josh: he/they

06-02-2007 09:39:22 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

06-02-2007 12:42:28 UTC

against Just because wealth seems redundant if we have “fame”.

snowballinhell7001:

06-02-2007 15:27:12 UTC

It’s really not. Fame and wealth are corellated but not necessarily equal.  for , but I agree that those who vote against have the right to name the currency, but this is how the proposal looks now. My nomination is ‘spam’ in honor of those who tied up this proposals second incarnation.

snowballinhell7001:

06-02-2007 15:27:58 UTC

3-4
Semollions: 1
Zollars: 1
Spam: 1

spikebrennan:

06-02-2007 15:35:07 UTC

for

Edometheus:

06-02-2007 16:26:26 UTC

Wealth and Fame aren’t any different as they stand now. However, if someone were to propose a way of SPENDING wealth (e.g. a poster campaign that increased an Actor’s fame), they would be different. Since this game builds on previously created rules: for

Hix:

06-02-2007 16:26:57 UTC

against Argh.  Another arbitrary restriction to those who vote FOR.

Angry Grasshopper:

06-02-2007 16:40:30 UTC

against

alethiophile:

06-02-2007 16:51:18 UTC

See my comments on the last one about those who can vote for currency unit. I don’t think that they should be allowed to.

Edometheus:

06-02-2007 17:58:48 UTC

Alethiophile,if your measure won’t pass because of a something that is a mere cosmetic change, then you should compromise with the disaffected. I like the idea of wealth, but after re-reading the proposal, I find myself siding with the disaffected.  against

Cosmologicon:

06-02-2007 18:34:11 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

06-02-2007 19:17:54 UTC

against Am I not trustworthy?

Angry Grasshopper:

06-02-2007 19:28:12 UTC

If you prick CP, does he not bleed?

Doremi:

06-02-2007 22:56:07 UTC

Money seems necessary for LA actor wannabes, but who am I to argue with the masses?

Angry Grasshopper:

06-02-2007 22:58:23 UTC

I’d vote FOR “Wealth beyond measure IV” if it contained the phrase “counted votes” for determining the currency, or left it undefined. We could make use out of Wealth and Fame nicely.

Elias IX:

07-02-2007 00:03:14 UTC

against

Edometheus:

07-02-2007 00:22:53 UTC

If you poison him, does he not die?
/Sorry, AG, but I wanted to say that…

alethiophile:

07-02-2007 01:54:50 UTC

against Ok, I’ll yield to the pressure of the disaffected masses.