Proposal: Rule Cleanup [Trivial]
In rule 2, change
Currently, an Admin could go idle and be able to freely change the ruleset, as rule 1 does not apply to them
Add to the end of rule 11
In Rule 11 change
Gives them back the right to quit, CfJ, etc., but specifically excludes voting, winning and any other round specific actions (such as attacking someone). By doing this, we can greatly simply things by always assuming that everyone is in an alliance, without having to avoid the word alliance in the name.
In rule 11, change
to
The multiple warlords sentence was what I decided on as cleanest, as it does need to be possible to edit the announcements for a short period, and the fact that alliances go away quickly if no one joins makes it rather hard to abuse.
6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos. Patio11's vote defered to Simon's, current Entropy Leader.
For the purposes of all other rules, idle Warlords are not counted as Warlordsto
For the purposes of rules other than 1 and 2, idle Warlords are not counted as Warlords
Currently, an Admin could go idle and be able to freely change the ruleset, as rule 1 does not apply to them
Add to the end of rule 11
If at any time a warlord would be in multiple alliances, they are in the last alliance they joined only.
In Rule 11 change
Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for rules which do not have the word “Alliances” in the name.,
Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for the purposes of Rules 4, 5, and 6.and
to
Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for rules which do not have the word “Alliance”, or any inflection of it, in the name.
Warlords who are not in an Alliance are not considered Warlords for rules other than 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11 and 12.
Gives them back the right to quit, CfJ, etc., but specifically excludes voting, winning and any other round specific actions (such as attacking someone). By doing this, we can greatly simply things by always assuming that everyone is in an alliance, without having to avoid the word alliance in the name.
In rule 11, change
Any Warlord may announce the creation of a new Alliance by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Alliance Creation: [Alliance Name]” in bold. Optionally any number of invites may be included in the format “Invite: [Warlord Name]”. Warlords who are invited in this way may immediately join the alliance without requesting permission. If the creating Warlord was already in an Alliance, creating an Alliance costs 10 Reputation.
to
Any Warlord may announce the creation of a new Alliance by posting an entry which begins with the paragraph “Alliance Creation: [Alliance Name]” in bold. Optionally any number of invites may be included in the format “Invite: [Warlord Name]”. Warlords who are invited in this way may immediately join the alliance without requesting permission. If the creating Warlord was already in an Alliance, creating an Alliance costs 10 Reputation and all other Warlords in the Alliance lose 5 Reputation. Upon announcing the creation of an Alliance, a Warlord's Alliance is set to that alliance. Announcements may not be edited as soon as the announced Alliance has greater than one Warlord.
The multiple warlords sentence was what I decided on as cleanest, as it does need to be possible to edit the announcements for a short period, and the fact that alliances go away quickly if no one joins makes it rather hard to abuse.
6-0 - Reached Quorum - Enacted by Chronos. Patio11's vote defered to Simon's, current Entropy Leader.
<< Home