Re: [s-b] [MetaMin] Clock Report, Nday 178.11

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I move to the White Room then.


On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:08 AM, James Baxter wrote:

> 
>> From: bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:14:49 -0500
>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-b] [MetaMin] Clock Report, Nday 178.11
>> 
>> I move to the Servant's Quarters,
>> I move to the Upstairs Hall,
>> I move to the Downstairs Hall, 
>> I move to the Kitchen.
>> 
> 
> 
> I give 0x44 a Kick in the Ass as e attempted an impossible change of Location, an action which is on the LOGAS, by trying to move to the Upstairs Hall, which e was in during the previous Phase.
> I recognize this Kick in the Ass.
> 
> However, I believe the change of location to the Servant's Quarters was successful, although the subsequent 3 movements were not.
> 
> In other news, I think Marr965 raises a good point with his kick reform proposal but I think it doesn't help to keep kick recognizing with one person and simply change that person. I think a satisfaction based system may work better by allowing all players a chance to say whether the kick should be recognized and leaving the kick giver and receiver out of that decision. I submit the following proposal:
> 
> {{__Even Fairer Kicks in the Ass__
> 
> Replace the text of Rule 79 with the following:
> {{There exists a part of the game state known as the List Of Generally Abhorred Stuff, which may be abbreviated LOGAS. The LOGAS contains the following list of actions:
> 
> * Performing any action which the rules say a player MUST NOT (or SHALL NOT but CAN) do.
> * Failing to perform any action which the rules say a player MUST or SHALL do within 3 ndays if the Clock is on, 3 wdays if the Clock is off, or within another time limit prescribed by the rule requiring the action.
> * Attempting IMPOSSIBLE changes of Location [[as it causes headaches for the Registrar]]
> 
> Whenever a player performs an action that is on the List of Generally Abhorred Stuff in a public forum, any player may state in a public forum that that player has performed an action on the LOGAS and give that player a Kick in the Ass with one supporter and without two objections. A player may not object to an announcement of intent that they be given a Kick in the Ass [[and the player giving the kick is forbidden from supporting the kick by the fact they are the executor - see rule 75]].
> 
> Multiple Kicks in the Ass may not be given in response to a single Action or Forum message.
> 
> When a Kick in the Ass is given, the player who recieved the Kick loses 5 points and gains the attribute “Sore” for the duration of one nweek.
> 
> When a Kick in the Ass is given, the player who delivered the Kick receives 5 points and gains the attribute “Kicker of Asses” for the duration of one nweek.
> 
> Players may recognize that eir action is on the LOGAS and give emself a Kick in the Ass, this does not need to be done with one supporter or without two objections. When a self-inflicted Kick in the Ass is given, the player who received and self-inflicted the Kick loses 5 points and gains the attribute “Sore, but Self-Aware” for the duration of one nweek. A player who Kicks eir own Ass does not receive 5 points or gain the attribute “Kicker of Asses.”
> 
> Any player who successfully delivers three or more Kicks in the Ass to players other than emself in a single nweek receives an additional 10 points, awarded upon giving the third Kick in the Ass, and gains the attribute “Supreme Kicker of Asses” for the duration of three nweeks.
> 
> 
> If at any point a player has recieved more than one Kick in the Ass in one nweek, e receives the attribute Buttplated for one nweek. If a player is Buttplated, and e receives a Kick in the Ass, the player who gave em the Kick in the Ass does not receive any points, nor does said Kick count towards a Supreme Kicker of Asses attribute. [[Basically, you gotta catch more than one person in the act of doing Generally Abhorred Stuff if you’re gonna get the bonus. You gotta earn that.]]
> }}
> }}
> 
> This is Proposal 6062.
> 
> [[I could also change the ambiguity about the "duration of one nweek" in this rule but I'm unsure which definition to use and this should probably be addressed on a more fundamental level by amending rule 3. Any suggestions on this would be welcome.]]
> 
> 		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business