Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm begging for attention or something,
but this seems to have been ignored. I don't mind that much, I'd just like
to know what stuff needs improvement. Have people just not noticed it yet,
does it really not have much wrong with it, or am I just too impatient?
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:55 PM, ATMunn . <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, the second draft is finished. I've changed a bunch of stuff, it's
> almost a completely different proposal now. I've taken into consideration
> almost everything Aris and Alexis mentioned, so I've given them
> co-authorship as well.
> I'm sure it's still got plenty of flaws. But it should be better. I'm just
> going to post this and go to bed now. I'll see what people think in the
> morning.
>
> Title: "A Reward for Obedience v2"
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
> AI: 1
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
> {
> Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by the
> Herald.
>
> [One note on this section here: I don't know whether or not it's
> implied that players should be able to, by some means or another, challenge
> whether or not a player is eligible if e believes it is invalid.]
> In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare emself to
> be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all of the following
> are true:
> * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last Agoran
> month.
> [I really don't like having to include this, but if I don't then
> players that literally do nothing can be eligible for Medals of Honour.]
> * E does not have negative Karma.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
> [I'm not exactly sure how to word the broken pledge thing, so I've
> left it out for now.]
>
> [I've never written a rule containing an Agoran Decision before, so
> I'm sure there's lots of flaws in this. I mainly copied stuff from various
> places in the rules.]
> In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any players who
> are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by announcement, and
> SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be
> awarded a Medal of Honour.
> For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are eligible
> for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
> method is instant-runoff.
> Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome is awarded a Medal
> of Honour.
>
> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour, and e has
> not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement,
> destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
> }
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:18 PM, ATMunn . <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a revised
>> version at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what Alexis said about the
>> idea of players declaring themselves eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now
>> Medal of Honour) is the idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran
>> Decision on who will get the medal. All players who declared themselves
>> eligible for a medal at the time of the initiation of the Agoran Decision
>> would be the possible votes. This would ease the load on the recordkeepor
>> even more, as e would only have to worry about initiating and resolving the
>> election.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn . <iamingodsa...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Title: A Reward for Obedience
>>> > Author: ATMunn
>>> > Co-Author(s):
>>> > AI: 1
>>> >
>>> > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
>>> > {
>>> > Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The
>>> Referee
>>> > is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>>>
>>> I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed currency tracked
>>> by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction unnecessary),
>>> or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor are a liquid
>>> currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of Honor is
>>> restricted to players".
>>>
>>> I have three further comments. First, this might be something best
>>> tracked by the Herald (maybe even the Tailor, as ribbons work on a
>>> similar basis), who deals with matters of honor. E would have to check
>>> the Referee's report, but right now the Referee has to check the
>>> Herald's report, so there's really no change. Second, you should
>>> probably change it not to have "badge" in the name, as badges are
>>> already defined by Rule 2415. Third, you could consider having persons
>>> be able to own them. If that was true, but gaining one was restricted
>>> to players, the effect would be that a person who deregisters and
>>> reregisters would get to keep eir badge count, the same way it is for
>>> ribbons.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>
>>
>
