xinoehp512

Jeremy blinked. "...what? Last I checked, I was in control of myself, thank you very much."

Jeremy frowned. "Don't need to- why would I not need to know that? That seems like important information!"

Uh, thanks. Though it is the character that doesn't know that, not me.

"TLT." Jeremy said the letters slowly, enunciating each one. "Is that an acronym for something?"

Jeremy threw his hands up in the air. And now they were ignoring him. Of course. "Can anybody tell me where I am?" he screamed into the endless void* above. "Please!" *A dangerous pastime, or so I am told, but marvelously cathartic.

Jeremy gave Abalador a look and shook his head, not bothering to respond. "Don't ask me*," responded Jeremy, who at this point was not in the mood to be surprised. "Nobody's been telling me anything." *Don't ask me either.

"Great," said Jeremy sardonically. "Just great. I'm surrounded by weirdos*. And I still don't know where I am!" *Don't take it personally. He's had a rough day**. **Or, well, first five minutes of existence.

Jeremy gives a yelp of pain and whirls around, furious. "What was that for?" he exclaimed angrily to the entity behind him.* *I would have described it, but I have no idea what an "abalador" is.

Jeremy began to laugh*. "A minion? I guess you're a supervillain, then?" *Okay. Maybe he was going a little insane.

"Did I... what?" Jeremy furrowed his brow. "Make it? How in the world would I have made It? I woke up here with no idea of who I am or where I am!"

Jeremey stared at the shadowed figure in pure, unfeigned bewilderment. "I... I'm sorry, what?" He scratched his head. "I don't- I can't- Look, do you know where we are?" He ran his fingers through his hair in desperation and laughed mirthlessly.* *Don't worry. He's not going insane. Yet.

Jeremy jumped at the voice. "Who- who are you?"

Jeremy, finding his questions unremarked and unanswered, looked around at his surroundings. He stood on a field of grass that appeared to extend indefinitely in all directions*. The sky was a distinctly unremarkable shade of gray. It let off enough illumination to see, but not enough to cause permanent eye damage were you to look at it**. There was nobody else within view, which at least explained why no one had responded to his queries. Unsure of what to do - and not a little unnerved by the emptiness - he began walking. *Because it did. **Honestly, it's surprising more worlds aren't this way. Suns are just so inconvenient; in addition to the whole thing with the blindness, they tend to go supernova when you least expect them to.

I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but the behavior for email notifications has changed. Previously, it would include the entire text of the message (excepting text in spoiler boxes): now, it shows only the first ~150 characters. Is this an intentional change?

While battles were waged and legends were made, an entirely normal human with nothing unusual about him in the slightest appeared in the middle of nowhere*. His name was Jeremy, and he was very confused**. "Where am I?" he asked first of all, and then: "Who am I?" *Well, nothing unusual except for the whole "having appeared from nowhere" deal, although - to be fair - that in itself was not a particularly unique trait in this setting. **You would be too, if you were in his situation. Don't take your knowledge of prior existence for granted! You never know when a particularly unfortunate rock of alarming size will take it all away.*** ***To be clear, that is not what happened here. Jeremy never had knowledge of prior existence to begin with.

Is the complaint system meant to be a gameplay element? Are there direct interactions in the rules for roleplay?

I'll join.

Very well... aye to 63. I propose PR#66: Friendly Fire: On (Amendment, dependent on PR#52) The text of PR#52 reading "Each card is majorly victorious over the card with number one greater than it and minorly victorious over the card with number 2 greater than it (e.g. the Bouquet is majorly victorious over the Handwritten Card and minorly victorious over the Wad of Cash)." has the following sentence added after it. "The Ring is majorly victorious over the Bouquet and minorly victorious over the Handwritten Card. The Token of Eternal Friendship is minorly victorious over the Bouquet." I propose PR#67: The Health Rule (Amendment to ER#28) The text of ER#28 reading "spend any resources that they have" is replaced by "take any actions that require spending resources." I also propose PR#68: The Gameboard Rule (Amendment to ER#12) The text of ER#12 has the following added to the end: "The game piece of a player represents that player, and may be referred to as that player. They may be treated as identical for gameplay purposes."

Well, there is a meaning that has been agreed upon and hasn't really been challenged by an alternative, even if that meaning could be more precisely defined. Vote for me as moderator and I will change the text to clarify the exact meaning.

Good sir the rule says a majority of three or more. Also we do have an inactive player now; Raven.

The player list keeps track of what order play happens in. It was @Ravenclawjedi42's turn, but they have not acted in 24 hours so their turn is skipped. That makes it @The Wandering Wizard's turn.

Am I missing something? The only of Wizard's rules that passed between this and the last update was Rule 21, with 3 yeas and 1 nay. Should it not be 1 MP gained, not 4, for a total of 3? 24,38,39,45,46,47,48 all pass with no nays. I get 2 AP and Experience gets 12. 22 is rejected. 41 and 49 are rejected. Nay to 50. (Forgot to do that last time.) Aye to 52, though it doesn't seem like it is very rock paper scissors at the moment- there would need to be a clause allowing, for instance, the Ring to beat the Bouquet and Card. Aye to 53-56. Nay to 57- AP farming goes brrrrrr Aye to 58. Nay to 59- the Moderator ought to determine whether punishment is in order or whether the violation was an accident, then resolve the situation accordingly. Aye to 60-62. Nay to 63- I don't want people collapsing all of their proposals into four to get them all through. Aye to 64. I'm never happy. Aye to 65, though I would argue that the wording of the original rule - "contains items that can be bought" - already allows for purchase of items.

Why does an amendment gain the text of the rule it amends? Why does an amendment cause the rule it amends to become repealed? What happens if an amendment modifies multiple rules (such as with PR#41)? Fair enough. I vote yea. I will note that I don't think that the failure clause is technically necessary, as if PR#31 were to pass after PR#37, the words "an empty space" would no longer exist in the text of PR#23, and so nothing would happen. Yea! I will vote yea, although I think that a later amendment should reword "doing so forfeits all other actions (other than making proposals and voting for them)" to "after they do so they may not take actions that require spending resources for the rest of their turn." That way it catches any action that requires spending AP or dollar bucks (and potentially gems, or any other resource), but it for sure will not interfere with actions that shouldn't be interfered with, such as ending a turn. It also brings it in line with the penalty for falling to 0 HP. (A reminder to myself to propose an amendment to The Health Rule to add "At the end of their turn," to the beginning of the sentence "Players may increase their health value by one for each hour that elapses while it is not their turn." and change "spend any resources that they have" to "take actions that require spending resources" if no one else does.) Yea. I will note that technically speaking the player and the player piece are two separate things, and that player pieces might not always be on the board. Perhaps we should amend The Gameboard Rule so that a player piece and the player it belongs to may be referred to interchangeably. Nay. (Dollar Bucks forever)! Abstain. I will note that even without this rule, the Moderator can quit being the Moderator by leaving the game and re-joining, at the cost of all player data. Nay. I think clarifications should stay in the text of the rule. Nay. I agree that we need to create a rule to standardize turns, but I don't think that it should depend on the Game State Sheet. Instead, I will propose PR#51: The Turn End Rule. A player's turn ends only when they declare that it has ended. Yea to PR#s 45-47. Yea. Technically speaking, any time a player joins it will be for the first time, because if a player leaves the game essentially forgets they ever existed. Nay, partially for the same reasons as PR#44, (The Round Counter shouldn't reference the Game Sheet at all) and partially because I think the Round Counter should increase when the first player in line takes their turn (and should be set to however many rounds have already elapsed.) Uh... there is no Beehive card. It got renamed to Honeycomb. Not necessary, The Easy Aye Rule has passed! I will also vote myself as Moderator.

For an example of how this would work, consider PR#s 34-36 (the monsters). If one of those were to pass and PR#33 did not, the rules would not make a good deal of sense. To put it another way, PR#s 34-36 depend on PR#33. Right now I'm expressing the dependency with the text in parentheses, but that's kind of a hacky solution. If 24 passes, future rules like 34-36 could simply be declared as dependent instead of needing the parentheses text. To be clear, the rule isn't allowing people to do something they couldn't already do, it just makes it simpler. Nobody needs to control the monsters. If no one controls them they'll just sit there until someone does. If you feel it's not fleshed out enough, you could always add a rule to flesh it out further. The Moderator can't win the game, so they have no incentive to target any player in particular. They essentially act as the GM. Could you walk me through how the Organization rule causes that to happen? I'm not entirely sure how the text as written would lead to the effects you describe.

Aye. I agree with the idea, but... this rule doesn't actually do anything as far as I can see. I will vote nay, but propose an amendment. (Later in the post, for organizational purposes.) I also can't help but notice that in the spreadsheet it is written as each of the seven cards (as in, trading cards), but the actual text of the rule only mentions cards- so it would technically have effect on the mosquito card. I will abstain, but I do think that the card should be obtained from the board in a certain way. Aye. I am of the opinion that the Ace of Spades card should interact with this part of the game. Now on to the proposals! I propose PR#24: The Dependency Rule. When a rule is proposed, it may be declared as "dependent" on another proposal. When a rule passes, all proposals that it depends on automatically pass if they have not already done so (even if they were previously rejected). This rule gives us that systemic way to propose modifications or extensions to existing proposals without having to worry about "dangling amendments." I propose PR#25: The Moderator Rule (amendment). The text of The Moderator Rule is changed to include the following at the end: "Executive Decisions cannot in any way alter the text or effect of this rule, nor can they affect any action that would alter either the text/effect of this rule or the process that allows this rule to be altered. Executive Decisions may be overturned by a majority vote of three or more players. The Moderator may be removed from office with a majority vote of three or more players." This is very important because otherwise the Moderator would have no bounds on what they could do. I propose PR#26: Action Points. (amendment to the Movement Points rule) Any instance of the words "movement points"/"MP" in the text of any rules or proposals is replaced with the words "action points"/"AP". Especially with the introduction of the Farming Sim rule, it seems that MP are going to be generalized beyond simply allowing movement; I feel the name should be changed to reflect that. I propose PR#27: The Trading Card Rule (amendment) The list of Trading Cards in the Trading Card Rule is changed to the following: " Ace of Spades Two of Wands Three-Headed Dragon Black Clover Ouroboros Honeycomb Seven-Pointed Star " This way the names are all consistent (no dangling "the"s.) Now to my proposed changes to PR#21. I propose PR#28: The Rule of Mystical Cards (amendment to PR#21) If this rule passes, PR#21 automatically passes (regardless of status) if it has not already. The text of PR#21 reading "is bestowed upon the user upon gaining it" is replaced by "can be activated by the owner if they are not the Moderator" This way the power of the cards is actually tied to the cards themselves, so it's not that once you get a card you have its power forever. I propose PR#29: The Power of the Black Clover. The power of the Black Clover is as follows: "Tap this card to gain ten action points." Tapped cards cannot be tapped again until they untap. Tapped cards untap at the start of their owner's turn. I propose PR#30: The Power of the Ace of Spades. The power of the Ace of Spades is as follows: "On your turn, you may spend 2MP to construct a farm on the space you are currently on." I propose PR#31: Farming Simulator (amendment to PR#23) If this rule passes, PR#23 automatically passes (regardless of status) if it has not already. The text of PR#23 reading "an empty space" is replaced by "a space without a farm on it". Technically speaking a space that you are on can never be empty, because you are on it; thus no farms could ever be built. My ideas for more card powers depend on a new set of rules being added to the game. The next few rules are meant as a combat system. I propose PR#32: The Health Rule. All players have a health value (HV) and a maximum health value (MHV) that both start at 100. The health value of a player can never be higher than their maximum health value, and it can never be lower than 0. Players may increase their health value by one for each hour that elapses while it is not their turn. A player that falls to 0 health moves to I9. A player at 0 health cannot spend any resources that they have. I propose PR#33: The Monster Rule. Monsters are pieces on the game board. Monsters have a health value (HV) and an power value (PV) (if not declared, they are assumed to be 0). If a monster's health is ever at or below 0, it dies and is removed from the board. Monsters are controlled by the Moderator unless otherwise specified. Whenever a monster attacks a target, it reduces that target's health value (if it has one) by the power of its attack (unless otherwise specified, the power of a monster's attack is equal to its PV). If the target does not have an health value, it is instead removed from the board. Unless otherwise stated, monsters may make one attack on a piece they share a square with on their controller's turn. I propose PR#34: The Three-Headed Dragon. (If this rule passes, PR#33 automatically passes (regardless of status) if it has not already. The text of these parentheses is removed after it has taken effect.) The Three-Headed Dragon is a monster that starts on A1 with HV 20 and PV 20. On their turn, the controller of the Three-Headed Dragon may have it perform up to one of the following actions: 1) Raze: The dragon flies any number of squares horizontally or vertically, making a power 5 attack against any piece occupying a square it moves through. 2) Freeze: The dragon freezes a piece on its square or an adjacent one. A frozen piece cannot move. At the end of a players turn, if their piece is frozen, it becomes unfrozen. 3) Thunderstorm: The dragon creates a thunderstorm on an adjacent tile. Any player piece that starts their turn in or enters a tile with a thunderstorm reduces their health value by 5. When the dragon is killed, the Three-Headed Dragon card is dropped on the square it was on and may be picked up by any player occupying that square on their turn. I propose PR#35: The Ouroboros. (If this rule passes, PR#33 automatically passes (regardless of status) if it has not already. The text of these parentheses is removed after it has taken effect.) The Ouroboros is a monster that spawns on Q17 with HV 1 and PV 1. If it would ever be removed from the board, the HV and PV values in this rule are both increased by 1, and it instead respawns. The Ouroboros is controlled by whomever holds the Ouroboros card. The controller of the Ouroboros may spend MP to move the Ouroboros as if it were their own piece. I propose PR#36: Goblins. (If this rule passes, PR#33 automatically passes (regardless of status) if it has not already. The text of these parentheses is removed after it has taken effect.) Goblins are monsters with HV 5 and PV 5. Their controller may move them 1 space orthogonally on their turn up to three times. When this rule is passed, goblins will start on the squares F6, F12, L6, and L12. I would also like to suggest that we include the exact text of each rule passed in the "Existing Rules" spreadsheet as it is currently in effect, and hide the amendments rather than hiding the original rules. As it is, I feel that the spreadsheet is not accurately representing the game state as described by the Organizational Rule. I will spend 2MPs to move to I6.