MetaTerminal
-
Posts
586 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by MetaTerminal
-
A number of new rules have been passed: the Fair Play Act, the Settlers of Disputes, and the Bold Text Initiative. (A note: deciding on what constitutes as 'reasons' will probably be down to a Settlers of Disputes vote.) 3 eggs have been awarded to Dr. Dapper, 3 to AonEne, and 3 to MiToRo. The amendment for the Rule of Locations has been included into the rule itself, as all who support the rule support the amendment (including me). Rules 94, 97 and 98 have thus been added to the Waiting List. I second the Monopoly Rule and the Rule of Zwei #2. I propose the Rule of Forbidden Things: that acknowledging this rule's existence is impossible. I withdraw it from consideration. :3 Due to issues with setting up a new poll for deciding presidency, I will instead be doing it in any format that @I think I am here. and @AonEne can agree on a format. I am massively out of date on Participation Eggs, but I claim it now. (I also had to manually change the formatting of the rules due to the Initiative. I hope you're all happy.) To Itiah, Hemalurgic Headshot, and Taradiddle: I move pawn d4. My Character Sheet: Gameboard Character Sheets Player Attributes Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Waiting List (ONLY THESE PROPOSALS CAN BE VOTED ON) Other Proposals (in order of time seconded, then time proposed): Proposed Amendments: Failed Rules
.png.11eecaf226314280803a80dc2392220d.png)
-
Which means, if this is true, that you didn’t need to even wait for Ene - it would become true the moment someone who voted for it received eggs, creating said feedback loop. Fixed. New Gameboard Rules! I have -21 eggs. :3
-
Okay, so Ene does support. In which case she would begin to support when the rule is enacted, and wouldn’t cause the problem since the eggs are awarded after the rule is put in place... ugh. The ordering on this is very confusing. It shouldn’t cause an infinite loop, anyway, since she’s either supporting or not supporting it, and once she’s made the shift she can’t go back (ie you can count her getting the eggs before she supports it, so you get double, but since she supports it after that she doesn’t get the double points). You could push to get one sum of points, but that’s basically it. That’s entirely fair. In that case, I shall take the first incident as the most agreeable, and assume that you have revoked your seconding, as indicated by the above quote. The waiting list is thus formed: I support the Rule of Inactivity. It passes, and is removed from the waiting list. The next (and only other) rule that is eligible to go on it is the Amended Sanity Rule. ( @AonDii does need to revote on it!) :3 -11 I propose two rules. The Rule of Locations: That the Gameboard be divided into four equal regions, considered ‘top-left’ (everything north and west of d5), ‘top-right’ (everything north and east of e5), ‘bottom-left’ (everything south and west of d4) and ‘bottom-right’ (everything south and east of e4), and that these locations shall correspond to the following places in the RP: Sel, Scadrial, Nalthis, and Roshar respectively. In order to be in a place in the RP (and take part in discussions in said places, etc.) you must have a piece on the board in these locations. In addition, every location created in the RP must have a position on the Gameboard. The Rule of Pieces: Every player must have a piece on the board. If you choose, you may place a non-chess piece which has the same movement abilities of a king (known as a ‘checker’) on the board as close as possible to the centre in a region of your choosing (prioritising north, east, south and then west directionally if their is ambiguity in possible placements). Multiple checkers may stack upon each other, but no checker may share a square with a chess piece (ie move to a chess-filled square, or have a chess piece move to a checker-filled square - this does mean that checkers ‘block’ moves through that square even if the move does not end on that square) and checkers may not check or be checked. A player may discard their checker for a chess piece at any time of their choosing, but may not do the reverse. Game State: Gameboard Character Sheets Player Attributes (Egg Balances currently in dispute and thus out of date) Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Waiting List (ONLY THESE PROPOSALS CAN BE VOTED ON) Other Proposals (in order of time seconded, then time proposed): Proposed Amendments: Failed Rules
-
At that point in the game, there had been little to no support for the rule - indeed, it had only been introduced 3 posts before. Thus, ‘unless the majority seems to be going the other way’ seems to indicate that a lot of people are voting for it (since there had been no indication of that happening up until that point, and the conditional indicates a yet unhappened but possible future scenario). There is also nothing that states you can vote for a rule once it has been passed. Similarly: Withdrawing support from a rule that has already been passed (or would have been passed) would not take those rules out of effect - similarly, a rule might be put into effect by you seconding it, and can’t be taken out when you un-support them. :3 -1 Since I think having the Gameboard and the RP more closely entwined - what would people think of 1) having a Rule where everyone needs to have a piece, but if you want you can have a piece that can’t be checked or check people and 2) having locations in the RP (possibly influencing trading, or fulfilling Side Quests) correspond to places on the board? I’m thinking of a zoning system where the board is divided into quarters.
-
In which case her vote would have been removed upon the imminence of the passing of the rule, since she would be a ‘deciding’ factor (a vote which got it passed by 1) - it would still be at 3. Even if you don’t want to un-effectify the rule (though it would have been passed in error and shouldn’t be counted, and just like you losing said false reportings are to be considered as not happening - I shall mull this over), it’s odd to claim that this somehow gives a feedback loop, since she’s going from supporting to not-supporting, meaning that once she has switched no more eggs would be given to her. Or, indeed, any extra eggs at all. :3
-
In the past, I have counted general indication of support (including vague answers like ‘I support this’ and ‘I second this’) as a vote for - unless you want to make a strict rule stating that general support does not count as a vote in the future (and without such a rule seconding would in this instance count as a vote), then we’d have to reasses the validity of effectively every rule we have. Indeed, Mac’s Rule gives no indication that seconding is nothing more than ‘a second person voting for support on it to give it legitimacy’. (I have a slight indication towards invoking the Rules Lawyering Rule as well, but that really depends on whether we can come to an agreement.) There’s a quote in my signature, I realise (though technically misprinted). Heaven Sent. :3. -1. I have no idea where Ene has indicated where they supported the rule - or, indeed, that rules can be successfully supported once in effect.
-
Amended. This has been seconded twice (and thus has three total votes), but it’s not on the waiting list - four more rules need to be passed before it can be put into effect. Thus, if you haven’t voted for some of them on the waiting list (or would like to propose to strike them), then do so, sil vous plait. *increased distress* “I have a bad feeling about this.” That being said, you may not have voted for some of those yet, meaning that they get passed - and removed from the waiting list. Whether that will be enough to get the new proposal on there remains to be seen. This is one lump sum of minus 10 - the rule states you lose them for each post, not each rule violation. I will make a move on the board and check the new waiting list shortly (about an hour). :3 (-1 eggs)
-
My post did not violate anything - I simply reported incorrectly on the effects of the passing of a rule. Rule 5 simply states that the rule is invalid, not that incorrectly invoking it is against the rules. On the other hand... storms. “Houston, we have a problem.” I propose the Amended Sanity Rule: That Rule 16 be removed from effect, and that any effects to egg balances caused by the rule (ie increases, decreases, transfers, or any other changes in egg state that the rule allowed or caused) shall be revoked, overruled and undone retroactively, so the game can be fair. This rule supersedes all other rules (lest Meta despair). (Note - since this is a proposed new rule, and not simply a removal, voting for it does not need to be in green.) In the interests of Voidus and (insert the other three people who voted for it) not immediately winning, someone needs to second this rule (to get it onto the waitlist - it can be considered to overrule ones already proposed, since they have not yet been seconded), and then two more people need to vote for it. I’m assuming that you are taking the eggs for the passing of new rules - I would be hesitant about that, since the eggs are being awarded at the same time as the rule is being passed into effect. Thus, when the transaction begins, the rule does not apply. So the ordering of it all is a little fuzzy. Also - UNO! Voidus’ post violates the First Rule of Idiocy. This will be of interest to @AonEne. (I’ll make the poll in the morning.) I actually can’t decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I cannot tell at all. :3
-
I challenge all active players (and anyone else who cares to become active) to a Duel of Awww! That being said, I don't want to have to include a whole bunch of different photos in one post, and I'd like to use different photos for each challenge, so consider this an 'I dare you to challenge me' statement. (Though I will specifically say that MiToRo's new snek needs to be on this thread at all costs.) The majority has fallen to 4, and as such many, many new rules have been passed into effect: Voidus' Law of Unfair Advantage, the Chessboard Rule, the Rule that Says You’ve Lost the Game, the Spikes Rule, the Discarded Proposal Proposal, the Voidus Law of Mayhem, the Musical Page Proposal, Ene's Third Rule, Voidus' Rule of Things, Mac's First and Second Rules of Organisation, Voidus' Ultimatum of Doom, the First Rule of Idiocy, the Rule of Egg Puns, and the Wandering Merchant Exception and Neutrality Act alongside the amendment to Dapper's First Law. Eggs have thus been awarded: 12 to @Voidus, 6 to @MetaTerminal, 9 to a player no longer involved in the game, 3 to @MiToRo94, 6 to @AonEne, 3 to @TheVillageIdiot, 3 to @Taradiddle, and 6 to @Hemalurgic Headshot. In the interests of streamlining, every proposal older than 3 days that has less than the minimum majority of 3 votes has been struck from consideration to streamline things. If you wish to protest the striking of a particular rule, I will reverse it. The list still violates Mac's Second Law, but only by 4 rules. Mac's Third Law of Organisation has also been fulfilled. In accordance with Meta's Sanity, and in conjunction with the passing of the Law of Unfair Advantage, Voidus loses. (This does not preclude him from continued play, or indeed winning some time in the future. We haven't got a rule dictating that yet.) We have a gameboard now! The Chessboard Rule has been reprinted here: there exists a standard chessboard, originally starting as the starting piece positions for white and black. Each player may elect one piece on the board as theirs - during their turn, they may move their piece as per the standard rules of chess. Checking a piece (checks being defined as per standard chess rules) which is controlled by another player (the ‘recipient’) gains the moving player 100 points, and loses the recipient 100 points. Mutual checks provide no point increase or deduction for either side. This will be really good for the game, if people take its existence into account and draft rules for it. How can we represent eggs, wandering merchants, duels, or other existing mechanics into the game? I claim the White Queen on d1. :3 Gameboard Egg Balances and Player Attributes Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments: Failed Rules
-
Welcome to the game! Sorry everyone, I was quite busy today, so I wasn’t able to pass things into effect that should have been. Tomorrow, I’ll do it all properly. :3
-
In which case, it’s probably good that it was revoked... If you provide evidence of the other upvotes, I’ll factor it into the Egg counts. :3 FIRST OFFICIAL EGGS COUNT: Please note that exactly 24 hours after the posting of this list, anyone not in accord with Ene’s Second Rule will be UNO-able. If you have queries about your Egg amount, then just contact me in the thread.
-
The only reputation received by one of your posts on this was the seventh post - since the Reputation Points Rule was enacted at the end of Page 10, you only receive 10 points. Reputation earned on posts before enaction don’t count. :3
-
The Reputation Rule does not specifically supersede this, and thusly only 10 Eggs are awarded. :3 @AonDii
-
Per Paradox, you have only received 10 (alongside Hemalurgic and Ene. My rep just slid outside the time period...) :3
-
Voidus is either wearing a third-person hat, has been possessed by Sudiov, or is dissociating. Perhaps all of the above? :3
-
The Reputation Rule is hereby considered to be taken out of effect - points already rewarded shall not be deducted, as per the Paradox. I shall do vote counts and egg counts later this afternoon. After that, Ene’s Second Rule will take effect 24 hours afterwards. :3
-
This is an error, and will be fixed when I have time. :3
-
Only 63, per the Paradox and the Reputation Point Rule. :3
-
Votes have gotten a lot more complicated with UNO and the Rule of Rules, so I will do them all separately and edit in the results and new passed laws. The majority requirement has fallen to five. As a result, Ene’s Second Rule, MiToRo’s Rule of Forgiveness, the Reputation Points Rule, the New Rule the First, the New Rule the Second, Non-Participation Eggs, the Brevity Act, the Last Will and Testament, the Title Rule, and Mac’s Third Rule of Organisation have all been passed into effect. Under Ene’s First Rule (and in accordance with the Paradox of Retroactive Rulings - sorry, Ene!) the following people receive Eggs: @AonEne (9), @MiToRo94 (9), @TheVillageIdiot (6), @MetaTerminal (3), and @MacThorstenson (3). Ene’s Second Rule will be a punishable offence 24 hours after an official Egg count is published. Under the Brevity Act, there are now too many proposals. As a result, I would like to start a vote that the following proposals be struck from consideration: any proposals older than 48 hours that have not yet attained 3 votes (the minimum requirement to be passed). (This may or may not fulfil the Act guidelines, but it would be a start. This is also not a vote on a proposal, and does not violate Meta’s Clause.) I will be organising the rules under Mac’s Third Rule of Organisation when it is convenient for me to do so - if you have suggestions, feel free to give them. I will also be taking suggestions for naming unnamed amendments, in accordance with the Title Rule. Engagement has been low recently aside from a select dedicated few, so I’d like to encourage everyone to challenge other people (a la the Maybe Rule). Riddles is just one option. Chess, odds, online board games, the Duel of Awww... there are many options, and it’s a great way to earn Eggs. There is no rule against being in multiple challenges, either, so I might challenge people individually later. :3 Existing Rules (ie rules that are in effect): Proposed Rules: Proposed Amendments:
-
As an internet custom (insofar as the circles I tend to move through), when someone fulfils Godwin’s Law, you say Godwin’s Law. It’s just a thing some people do sometimes. No change required. :3
-
Of course it is. It also fulfils Godwin’s Law. You don’t need to change it - it’s not an UNO. It’s just something you say when someone fulfils Godwin’s Law. It requires no action on your part. :3
-
Well, you did already. Which is why I invoked it. :3
-
Hmm. Maybe this will work? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Alternatively, you could copy and paste the link rather than clicking. It might be something Shard-end. :3
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law :3
-
Godwin’s Law! UNO! Dapper’s First Law! :3
.png.11eecaf226314280803a80dc2392220d.png)