BZNomic

[ShadowVezon]

Same here. Ore Mining please.

[Toarobot18]

Just Norik,

 

1. Yes.

2. At the moment you can create, amend, or repeal mutable rules to allow you to win or for any other reason, or change mutable rules into immutable rules and vice versa.

3. As long as it does not break the Ironclad Rules, yes. Additionally, if it conflicts with an immutable rule or a rule with a lower number, the other rule overrides it.

 

Ehks mined 2 ores.

Pupwa mined 2 ores.

 

ShadowVezon, I don't think it has quite yet been 24 hours since you last mined.

[NorikSigma]

I'd like to join, then. Sounds fun!

 

I'll take... Tka Orde? Psionics and stuff.

 

Put player name as "Norik", because display name stuff.

[Toarobot18]

I have added you to the list.

 

Our new Chief Turaga is Lhikevikk. He should appoint the judges as soon as possible.

 

Our new Council Members of the Matoran Council are Portal, Mairanui, and ShadowVezon.

 

Now if anyone else wants to second Proposal 66 . . .

[Underscore]

I will mint an ore and then mine.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Mairanui

[-Toa Lhikevikk-]

I appoint Toarobot and Pupwa our new judges.

[Toarobot18]

Mairanui mined 7 ores.

[Dapper-Sama]

I wish to mine ores.

[ShadowVezon]

Well now it's been a day, so I would like to mine for ores.

[Portalfig]

I will mine ores as well, and make myself an Armor. 

[Toarobot18]

Dapper-San mined 3 ores.

ShadowVezon mined 4 ores.

Portal mined 7 ores.

I mine for ores. I mined 4 ores.

[NorikSigma]

I SECOND PROPOSAL 66.

[Toarobot18]

Proposal 66 passes and is now a rule.

 

Proposal 67, to create a new mutable rule:

 

 

A player may voluntarily transfer some or all of his widgets, ores, armor, rahi, or other property to another player by requesting that the property be transferred in this topic.

[Underscore]

I SECOND PROPOSAL 67

I would like to mint all of my ore and then put it in the vaults.

[Portalfig]

I SECOND PROPOSAL 67

[Toarobot18]

Widgets minted and transferred. First post updated.

 

I encourage the Matoran Council to agree upon and appoint the Secretary of the Great Nui Treasury.

[NorikSigma]

I SECOND PROPOSAL 62.

 

I SECOND PROPOSAL 67.

 

I propose a new rule

 

68.

 

A player may spend thirteen (13) widgets to add an enhancement to their Scary Rahi. A Scary Rahi with an enhancement(henceforth known as a Terrifying Rahi) is able to kill or steal from a player of its owner's choice even if that player has a Scary Rahi if their own unless they also own a Terrifying Rahi.

 

If the owner of a Terrifying Rahi chooses to steal from another player they can steal a maximum of ten (10) widgets.

 

In order to prevent imbalance, an owner of a Terrifying Rahi must wait at least 48 hours before sending their Terrifying Rahi on an errand(kill or steal).

I also believe the proposal is thematic.

 

EDIT: Edited price of Terrifying Rahi.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Just Norik

[Toarobot18]

Proposal 67 has passed and is now a rule. I agree that the above rule proposal is thematic.

 

Note that, technically, according to Rule 15 you may not edit the quoted text of a rule-change proposal once it has been posted, but must instead propose a new rule. However, since no one had seen or seconded your proposal in this case, I don't think it really matters.

 

I would second your proposal, but I think it might be a little unclear as to whether kill/steal attempts are always successful if the other player does not have a Terrifying Rahi, or if this relies upon a 3/6 dice roll like the Scari Rahi attempts do. If the rule as proposed passes, I will interpret it as meaning that they are always successful under the right conditions.

[NorikSigma]

So do I have to change the number to reflect any changes? Like, a new proposal?

 

The rule is that you have to win the dice roll, as compared to auto failure if the both guys has a scary Rahi.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Just Norik

[Toarobot18]

Well, the original proposal would still exist, and since that can't technically be changed once posted, you would make a new proposal, with its own separate quoted text, and it would take the next available number like any proposal would. If you look at the second-to-last post on the bottom of page two, you will see an example where I messed up a proposal and therefore made another one just to ensure I wouldn't break Rule 15.

 

Alright. To ensure that is how the rule is interpreted, you might want to specify that thefts and kill attempts are "attacks" and covered by Rule 27, since the current wording only says a Terrifying Rahi "is able to kill or steal .  .  . unless they also own a Terrifying Rahi."
 

[NorikSigma]

Okay, then. I also think it is thematic

 

Here's Proposal 69:

A player may spend thirteen (13) widgets to add an enhancement to their Scary Rahi. A Scary Rahi with an enhancement(henceforth known as a Terrifying Rahi) is able to attack or try to steal from a player of its owner's choice, success or failure dictated by Rule 27, even if that player has a Scary Rahi of their own unless they also own a Terrifying Rahi as well.

 

If the owner of a Terrifying Rahi chooses to steal from another player they can steal a maximum of ten (10) widgets.

 

In order to prevent imbalance, an owner of a Terrifying Rahi must wait at least 48 hours before sending their Terrifying Rahi on an errand(kill or steal).

 

It is also encouraged for the player to specify the enhancement of the Rahi, although it has not bearing on the mechanics of the game whatsoever and merely a personal choice.

Sorry about Edit, it was a typo for this post.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Just Norik

[Portalfig]

I nominate Ehks for Secretary. 

[Toarobot18]

I SECOND PROPOSAL 69. I agree that it is thematic.

[Dapper-Sama]

I second Proposal 69.

 

I'd like to mint my ores.

[Underscore]

Mint an ore and then mine, please.

[Dapper-Sama]

I propose Proposal 70:

 

70. This Rule shall create the Dig Site. At the Dig Site, Players my explore in search of Ancient Kanoka; RNG by the Host will decide which one, if any, the Player discovers. There are only 9 of each, starting at Level 1, and Players must combine like Kanoka at the Forge to upgrade them (i.e. 2 Level 2 Ancient Kanoka make a Level 4). Scary Rahi have a 10% chance to steal one Kanoka in their target's possession, and Kanoka can be claimed when their owner dies. Acquiring all Kanoka and getting them to Level 9 will achieve the Forging win condition (see Rule 65).

Edited July 3, 2014 by Dapper-San

[Toarobot18]

Mairanui, you already minted all your ore and moved the widgets to the Vaults.

[Underscore]

@#$@!

 

Alright, I'll take A widget out of my vault, and mine.

[Pupwa21]

Mine, then mint ALL of my ores.

[Toarobot18]

It gets worse. (This is why I hinted earlier against putting stuff in the Vaults.)

 

Rule 55 says, "If any player or character who proposed or seconded this proposal is eliminated or killed . . . then if that player rejoins the game, he may post reclaiming all the widgets and items that were formerly his or his character's, all of which are transferred from the Vaults to his or his new character's possession once he has claimed them. If any player who proposed or seconded this proposal wishes his widgets and items to be returned to him from the Vaults at any time, regardless of whether he has been eliminated and returned or his character has been killed, he may post requesting the widgets and items be returned and they are to be immediately transferred from the Vaults to his or his character's possession."

 

Rule 60 says, "This proposal will allow players to deposit items to the vault," expanding Rule 55 to allow any player to put things in the Vaults, but does not provide for any way to remove items for players or characters who did not propose or second the Rule 55 proposal.

 

I suggest someone propose a rule or amendment allowing Mairanui and other players in his situation to get their stuff back.

 

Pupwa mined 6 ores.
 

Edited July 3, 2014 by Toarobot18

[Pupwa21]

Proposal 71

This will expand the vaults capabilities, so people who did not second proposal for rule 55, can now remove items from the vaults.

[Dapper-Sama]

I second Proposal 71.

[Underscore]

I SECOND PROPOSAL 71

[Toarobot18]

Proposal 72 to create a new mutable rule.

 

This will expand the vaults capabilities, so people who did not second proposal for rule 55, can now remove their own items from the vaults.

(Added "their own" so people don't remove other people's items.)

 

EDIT: I will be away until late this evening, so I may not be monitoring this topic and updating the first post. I will process all requests when I return.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Toarobot18

[Underscore]

I SECOND PROPOSAL 72

[Pupwa21]

SECONDING PROPOSAL 72

[Underscore]

I shall remove 1 widget and then mine for ore.

[Ehksidian]

I SECOND 72

[Valendale]

I SECOND PROPOSAL 69. I agree that it is thematic.

I SECOND PROPOSAL 72.

 

I would like to mine for ore.

[ShadowVezon]

I would also like to mine for ore. I would also like to second Proposal 70.