Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Corona]

​*emself; e, sorry​.

~Corona

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Corona  wrote:

> Doesn't G. have 5 votes by himself? He is PM and has 3 zombies.
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Ned Strange 
> wrote:
>
>> I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
>> least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.
>>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
>> > I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
>> > have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
>> > distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
>> > near term.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others,
>> some
>> >> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
>> >> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
>> >> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> >>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one
>> zombie
>> >>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
>> >>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration
>> to 90
>> >>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those
>> are as
>> >>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
>> >>>
>> >>> -Aris
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Corona]

Doesn't G. have 5 votes by himself? He is PM and has 3 zombies.

~Corona

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Ned Strange 
wrote:

> I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
> least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
> > I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
> > have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
> > distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
> > near term.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others,
> some
> >> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
> >> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
> >> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
> >>
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one
> zombie
> >>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
> >>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration
> to 90
> >>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those
> are as
> >>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 16:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Ribbon ownership really isn't a good method of protection - I noticed
>> that when we thought about a festival during Gaelan's April Fools
>> joke.
>
> Well, it was intended to protect against non-Agorans, possibly via
> recruiting former Agorans to help out.
>
> Zombies kind-of flip that round via /being/ an invasion of former
> Agorans. From the rules' point of view, when it comes to a battle
> between new players and zombies, the zombies "should" win. The invalid
> assumption is probably that if a player is registered and taking
> actions, they're still actively playing.

This is the invalid assumption that zombies were designed to break,
unfortunately. It's what makes weakening them without making them no
fun so difficult.

-Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2018-04-30 at 16:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ribbon ownership really isn't a good method of protection - I noticed
> that when we thought about a festival during Gaelan's April Fools
> joke.

Well, it was intended to protect against non-Agorans, possibly via
recruiting former Agorans to help out.

Zombies kind-of flip that round via /being/ an invasion of former
Agorans. From the rules' point of view, when it comes to a battle
between new players and zombies, the zombies "should" win. The invalid
assumption is probably that if a player is registered and taking
actions, they're still actively playing.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 1 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 09:47 +1000, Ned Strange wrote:
> > I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
> > least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.
> 
> Hint: How many Ribbons do the zombies have? A zombie apocalypse isn't
> that much different from an invasion of humans.

V.J.'s zombie has 4, mine have 5, 10 and 0.  Zombie Quazie has 7.
Zombie nichdel has 11.

On the flip side, two non-zombies who have expressed desire to weaken/
eliminate zombies have 1 and 0 (ATMunn and Trigon) unless I missed
something (and they could pick up a couple easy ones probably).

Ribbon ownership really isn't a good method of protection - I noticed
that when we thought about a festival during Gaelan's April Fools joke.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 09:47 +1000, Ned Strange wrote:
> I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
> least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.

Hint: How many Ribbons do the zombies have? A zombie apocalypse isn't
that much different from an invasion of humans.

(Of course, Zombies may well have more Ribbons than the average player!
But at least you could recruit more long-term players – perhaps even
the zombies themselves – to help out.)

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Ned Strange]

I think G and I with our 6 votes between us can block anything, or at
least anything with more than 1 AI. Funny.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
> I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
> have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
> distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
> near term.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others, some
>> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
>> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
>> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
>>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
>>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
>>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
>>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

Alright. You can consider it weakened in the way I suggested. However,
I need to see which of these changes has has consensus. Anyone else
have an opinion on the matter? I'll save this for next week's
distribution, given that your basic nerf is probably sufficient in the
near term.

-Aris


On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others, some
> especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to
> deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
> I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
>> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
>> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
>> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
>> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
>>
>> -Aris
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Kerim Aydin]

Most of them at this point.  There's a few that are worse than others, some 
especially bad for returning zombies (forcing a returning zombie to 
deregister?  what's that about?).  But the version I proposed is what
I'll personally vote for in this next proposal batch, nothing further.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
> limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
> dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
> days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
> far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?
> 
> -Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Nerf Zombies

[Aris Merchant]

Which provision most bothers you? I might be willing to drop the one zombie
limit if it strikes you as reasonable, it's probably unneeded with the
dependent actions change. I'd even consider extending the expiration to 90
days, although having one just seems like common sense to me. Those are as
far as I can tell the only actual restrictions I've added?

-Aris

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 7:36 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > This is an attempt at a significant reduction in zombie power (so we
> > don't need to repeal such a fun mechanic). I have attempted to keep
> > them usable while at the same time not making them overpowered. This
> > also creates a standard notion of which players are "active" and
> > formalizes the sacrosanct status of omd, among other reforms. The
> > basic idea is that pro-zombie players will favor this over repeal and
> > anti-zombie players will prefer some regulation over none. Given this
> > and the large number of other fairly urgent proposals currently in
> > flight, I'm delaying this weeks distribution.
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> Personally, I would vote against this - this is a "compromise" that is so
> anti-zombie that we might as well get rid of them, and these changes have
> little to do with basic nerfing.  I would support the minimal change of
> adding the Zombie Restrictions rule (preventing dependent actions).
>
> I submit the following Proposal, Basic Nerf, AI-3, co-author Aris.  I
> pend it with a paper.
>
> ---
> Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Zombie Restrictions", with the
> following text:
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a zombie who is being acted
> on behalf of CANNOT initiate, support, object to, or perform a
> dependent
> action.
> ---
>
>
>