On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: > - if at least two other players done so so e last did so, or s/done/have done > A player CAN, without objection from the Proposal's author, add a > Fragment to a Defragmentation Proposal's Inode if, were the > Proposal adopted, that Fragment's text would be added to the > Ruleset.
Maybe restrict this to proposals in the Pool. > On an Agoran Decision to adopt a Defragmentation Proposal, the > list of Fragments in the Proposal's Inode along with their > authors is an essential parameter. The Promotor's report shall > include the same information for each such Proposal in the report. > > When a Defragmentation Proposal is adopted, the author of the > Proposal is awarded a Leadership Token. Additionally, each player > who authored one or more Fragments in the Proposal's Inode is > awarded Leadership Tokens equal to one third the number of such > Fragments e authored, rounded up. Lastly, all Fragments cease to > be Fragments. This puts the reward for contributing a fragment as high as that for authoring the whole (which is quite high in both cases-- 6 rests is a lot). > If a Fragment that is a member of a Defragmentation Proposal's > Inode ceases to be a Fragment, it is still treated as one for the > purpose of rules relating to that Proposal. For this reason, it is > RECOMMENDED that the Granulator not restart the numbering of > Fragments. Why allow this in the first place? > COMMENTS: I like this a lot-- like FRC but not really. It's refreshingly different from most of the gameplay we've had recently, and adds a new source of economic rewards. I'm not sure whether this is actually a good way to construct rules, but who knows-- encouraging a little more chaos and mutability in the Ruleset wouldn't be so bad. One thing: perhaps allow for the proposal author to modify fragments in a way which does not change their meaning (e.g. replacing appropriate nouns with pronouns).
