No I think that's an actually good proposal that provides a path to victory that might be conceivable while also incentivising strict rules enforcement. I would likely vote FOR it in its current form. Although that said, perhaps if this comes in Victory Elections should go, for in my opinion they're a bit similar.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know that I for one read over it and liked the idea and wasn't sure > whether it was would work as is, but didn't have thoughts on how to improve > it, therefore I didn't comment. I'm sorry that I wasn't very helpful, but I > don't have ideas on how I could be. > > > On 10/15/2017 08:35 PM, ATMunn . wrote: >> >> 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 >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto:thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn . >> <iamingodsa...@gmail.com <mailto: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 >> >> >> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
