#55 pt 2: The Smithy is hereby responsible for noticing and creating swords requested by players. The Smithy must post a response to sword requests on the rule #55 post. Only after the Smithy posts this response will swords be awarded and QI'yaH be deducted by the administrator.
#55 pt2.1: When a player requests a sword, the smithy has five calendar days to notice and respond.
#55 pt2.2: If the Smithy fails to respond within the alloted time, the player may call her on it by posting a response to the same post. If the player does so, the Smithy forfeits the QI'yaH fee for creating the sword and receives one Frag, though the player still pays the Baron and the Smithy must still create the sword. If the smithy posts the sword creation response before the player comments on the slow service, no penalties are imposed.
#55 pt2.3: If the Smithy will be gone for an extended period of time, s/he may post an "on vacation" note explaining when s/he will return. The vacation ends early if the Smithy makes any other posts to nomiblog during the vacation period. The Smithy's apprentice, if s/he has appointed one, may create requested swords during the vacation period, but is not obligated to. The Smithy must create at least one sword per day upon returning from vacation until the backlog has been relieved.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Rule #55 part 2: Smithy Duties
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Yes. The Smithy has it too easy-- we citizens request swords and the Smith can take as long as she wants to create them. It would be one thing if she were doing it for free, but we're paying, darn it.
And my troops, the swordless, scythe, rake, and woodaxe-wielding lot of them, will back me on this.
No. I assigned the life-time smithy position to a player who rarely has time to spend on Nomiblog. If I'd expected it to become a job that requires much effort on the Smith's part, I'd have appointed someone with more time to goof off.
"#55b The Smithy will create a sword for any player who pays one (1) QI'yaH to the Smithy (for the item) and one (1) QI'yaH to the Baron(ess) (for a sword license). This payment is not automatic upon request and must be detailed in the form of a comment to this post."
Due to that wordage - "the smithy will create" and "This payment is not automatic" - I've been interpreting the creation of the sword to be automatic as long as the proper steps are taken to request one.
Effectively, I feel the Rule indicates the Smithy's duties are performed irregardless of their wishes and efforts. I've been taking it upon myself to adjust the various sidebar tallies, as I don't think non-administrators can do so.
Do you interpret this law to mean something else? Or are you just raising a facetiously in-character complaint?
Mostly, this bill objects to the free income for a player. Given the value of QI'yaH and swords, it seems like a modicum of effort should be expended to be the Smith.
I'm bummed that the current Smith doesn't have much time to Nomiblog it, but I'm not sure that means she should get free QI'yaH.
For those on the fence, I would point out that the Smith could appoint an apprentice and then go on extended vacation, returning occasionally to make swords, vote, and then go on vacation again.
Alternately, she could just go on vacation without appointing an apprentice and leave us all swordless.
She could also retire and name a successor.
Mostly, this bill objects to the free income for a player. Given the value of QI'yaH and swords, it seems like a modicum of effort should be expended to be the Smith.
I'm bummed that the current Smith doesn't have much time to Nomiblog it, but I'm not sure that means she should get free QI'yaH.
For those on the fence, I would point out that the Smith could appoint an apprentice and then go on extended vacation, returning occasionally to make swords, vote, and then go on vacation again.
Alternately, she could just go on vacation without appointing an apprentice and leave us all swordless.
She could also retire and name a successor.
Yes - I agree with the lack of effort required of this position. It also sucks that the smith does not have much time. I would recommend giving up sleep :)
Mostly, this bill objects to the free income for a player.
That's part of why I gave the position to someone I knew would have minimal free time to exploit the ready "cash".
Wow. This bill is actually the perfect argument in favor of Bill Zero.
Rather than being titled "Bill 55, part 2" it was posted with the title "Rule 55, part 2". Technically,it's not a bill, and therefore cannot be tallied by the Administrator.
But despite it's being title "Rule" it isn't a rule yet since it hasn't been voted upon. It's a Pretender to the Law.
Bill Zero, should it become Rule Zero, shall fix that and allow the Administrator to tally the votes applied to this non-bill that is clearly intended to be a bill.
Thank you, Digital Sextant!
Yikes! Good catch.
Of course, I would be amused to be ruled out on those grounds, but only kinda.
Braap! Only kinda! Braap!
Currently, with only 3 players voting, the votes count 7 yes to 1 no.
So, now the question is: How do I fight this bill?
I see three methods available to me...
1) I could vote No and invoke certain unnamable (nameless so that I don't accidentally invoke them here) you-know-who's that would grant me 2 extra no votes. This bill would still pass though, 7 to 3.
2) I could instead use those nameless fellows to vote against Bill Zero, switching it from 3yes-to-0no to a rejectable 2yes-to-3no vote. Thereby making Bill Zero fail so this bill is rendered powerless.
3) I could call or email Amy and try to motivate her into buying a couple sword licenses and throwing her resulting unnamed individuals into plans 1 or 2.
Plan 2 is the most likely to be effective, but has some fairly hefty drawbacks. Plan 3 seems like the most fun - if she goes for it we could change the vote here from 7v1 to 7v7, which would be rejected at tally-time.
I should mention that I like fighting over bills and votes - to do so makes me quite happy. Politics suits me so.
No. And my homies (troops) got my back (support me in this). If the Admin would please note, prior to making this comment, I have purchased 2 more swords bringing my total to 3. Hoo-Rah!
I suggest that declaring your intent to purchase swords and having them are not the same thing. It took five days for me to get my sword when I purchased it.
Please note that a convenient corollary of this current non-bill intended to be a bill would be that the question of when swords are made is resolved without resorting to administrator adjudication.
Braap! A convenient corollary of this current non-bill intended to be a bill. Braap!
No. Again I say "No", and happily. Since nothing better has come along, my troops shall backeth me upon this. They have shiny new swords, after all.
Post a Comment