Wikipedia:Trading card game/Rules/Approved

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two expandable decks per player

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: Each player uses two decks-- a "good" deck and a "bad" deck. The good deck contains cards which could benefit Wikipedia in one fashion or another. The bad deck contains cards which are detrimental to Wikipedia. The good decks are used to build the player's hand of cards. The bad decks are used to generate random bad events by flipping over the top card. Both the good card deck and bad card deck are expandable so long as the deck meets regulatory standards.

Dependencies: Deck-building standards will need to be established. Motives for collecting cards must be established. Motives for continuing to collect cards even after you have won several times must be established.

Comments

Two decks seems like a good idea. All though I hate to say it, some sort of thing like the way that Pokemon and others are set up would be good, for collecting. If we could do something like that, that is. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"If we could do something like that, that is." <<<Can't think of anything that would keep us from it. As long as players don't mind carrying around two decks when they play. After all, what better way to hide the rectangular lump in your pocket than to have another of equal size in the other pocket? (Personally, I prefer carrying my trading card games around in a box, as it allows for me to include counter stones, dice, Post-It notes, and several decks.) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but Good God! Do you realize how you sounded in that??? And now that I've said that... I doubt that I would be carrying them in my pockets, anyways. :P ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rotation order

Proposed by: RatonBat Talk 2 me!!

Rule: Turns proceed in a clockwise fashion.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Support. I see no immediate reason to go counterclockwise. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We could, just to be unique... But no, this is fine. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Player count

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule (original proposal): The game may be played by 2 or more players, with no limit as to how many play.

Dependencies: None.

Rule (adapted from consensus below): The game may be played by at least two players. The game is not intended for a group larger than 6 players.

Comments

This idea is one that should not be discussed until we have most of the other rules. How can we know how many players there would be if we don't know how the game will work yet? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm wondering how we would determine how the game works if we don't know how many people may play. See, with a "2 or more players" rule, inter-player actions can affect the person to left or right, a selected person, several people, or all people, whereas "2 players" would only affect the opponent. However, I am willing to hear your explanation here... :) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I like going in my direction better. :P I do that with any sort of maze, too. I always go backwards. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have a limit of players, if we have too much, your turn never comes and it makes it a bit boring. Maybe form 2-6 players... I also suggest turns will come clockwise...--RatonBat Talk 2 me!! 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. While I don't think massive 20-player games would be popular (most Magic games I've played never went past 4 or 5 players for the sheer fact that that was all who were interested in playing), this rule could be significant for tournament purposes if there should be tournaments at, say, the annual WikiMedia conferences. By the way, I'm adding your proposal regarding the clockwise rotation below. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Game Experience

Proposed by: Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis)

Rule: To use certain cards (like the Admin or Rollbacker cards) the player must have a certain amount of experience (let's call it Centijimbo.) Every time a player helps improve an article, they earn a certain amount of Centijimbos.

Dependencies: This would prevent just any player from using the Higher Position cards immediately (like on Wikipedia.) This would also establish some motive in the game.

Comments

I like it! So instead of collecting manna, we rack up centijimbos that give us the power to do better things! Lol, might I suggest that time is of equal importance to edit count? (sorry...couldn't resist the reference to Wikipedia talk:Service awards....) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Service awards? That actually might be a good idea! Though I'm not too sure how we would implement it. Perhaps we could give them out to winners of tournaments. :) --Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 23:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Woah. I sense creativity. We'll have none of that. *snicker snicker* Just kidding. That's the sort of thinking we need to get this ball rolling. I'm not sure about the tournament winner service awards...I was thinking more along the lines of lapsed game time and point amount. Of course, tournament winners would get a special memento of some sort-- perhaps a trophy and a couple packs of limited edition cards. But we ought to leave tournaments alone until we learn how to actually play this game. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Haha! Yes, I also agree we should wait. ;) --Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 02:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good one! I never thought of using Centijimbos! :) It's definitely a more creative idea than using edit counts... ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Disaster stage

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: The disaster stage (time executed is to be determined yet) involves turning over a single card from the disaster deck of the player whose turn it is. The special instructions on the card (if any) should be followed. That player must end/remove the disaster as required. If unable to fix the problem, the next player follows the special text on the card as well and is given the opportunity to fix the problem. The card's instructions continue to be executed until the problem is solved. The accumulation of ten five concurrent disasters in the game indicates the game is over and the editors have failed to save the wiki.

Dependencies: This is dependent on our adoption of two decks per player, which has not yet been approved.

Comments

Looks good to me. But, one thing: How would the "ten concurrent disasters" bit work? I don't quite understand that one (perhaps I'm being absent minded...). By the way, I think that the two decks proposal will go through, and that it would be sae to assume that it will in nominations (or whatever we are calling these). ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's a sample turn using five concurrent disasters:
Player A's turn. The following disasters are in play:
  • "Bad Policy" in Player A's Wikipedia space, lowering each good user-in-play's morale by 1
  • "Vandalous Anonymous IP" in Player A's User space
  • 2 "Sockpuppet"s in Player A's User space
  • "Sockpuppet" in Player B's User space
And yeah, I just realized ten is rather hopeless to resolve. Five is a much better number I think. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so the disasters would all have to be in play at once, and then everyone would lose? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Right-- if a full round happens with at least five disaster cards still in effect, everyone loses. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Playing spaces

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: Each player has to his left his deck 1 draw and discard, and to his right, deck 2 draw and discard. The player's "in play" space is divided into the Wikipedia space (for policy cards), the User space (for entity cards), and the Article space (for article cards). In the middle of the table (also considered "in play" is the Common space, where actions occur, such as rollbacker vs. sockpuppet.

Dependencies: Designed to compliment the two decks proposal.

Comments

Seems fine to me. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Amendments

Struck the purpose of the Userspace per proposal of playing User cards; we have determined good User cards will not be used. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing a card from play

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: At various points during some games, a player may be instructed to "place a card out of play" or "remove a card from play". This is not to be confused with discarding, during which the player places the card on its respective discard pile. Rather, the card is placed somewhere out of the playing area entirely, be that in the box, under the table, in the player's pocket, or wherever the player chooses, so long as he does not bring it back into play again during that game. Some players may choose to set up an additional "graveyard" discard, others may choose to put it in the box where they keep their cards, still others may have vowed to destroy all cards removed from play by ripping or burning them (serious players, I guess).

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Depending on if this would be called for in a rule, sure. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Card types

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: Cards consist of the following types:

Good cards (good deck, these are played from the player's hand):

  • Article - the hub of the game, article cards can be promoted to higher quality levels and eventually become featured, earning the player points. Examples: Battle Hymn of the Republic, Bengal tiger

*User - required in order for articles to be promoted, also required for fending off attacks. Examples: Editor, WikiDragon

  • Edit - action cards, may be used for improving articles or performing a variety of other actions, including granting rights or banning. Examples: Banned indefinitely, Promote article
  • Wikipedia - special rare cards that alter the rules of the game for the better. Examples: RfA, WikiProject Tree of Life
  • Instant - special action cards that can be played at any time, designed to interrupt negative actions. Useful for helping other others tackle pivotal disasters in the game. Examples: RSS Feed, Server crash

Bad cards (disaster deck, these are played as soon as they are turned over)

  • Article - articles that are inappropriate for Wikipedia (preferably, titles that are watched on the real Wikipedia). Examples: Difference between engineering and technology, Not A Clue
  • User - disaster cards which require a "battle" between an admin and the vandal in order to clear. Examples: WikiJaguar, Meatpuppet
  • Edit - action cards used for degrading the quality of good articles, hurting good users, overturning good policies, and the like. Also may be used to leverage the effects of bad users/articles/policies. Examples: Deleting the Main Page, Village Stocks
  • Wikipedia - malformed policies or projects which disrupt the game with rules that hurt the Wiki. Examples: Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, WikiProject Vandalize

Dependencies: This proposal is designed to compliment the prior proposal regarding the playing space.

Comments

I like them all. Good job coming up with them. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Just doing my best to crank out as many proposals as I can so we can get to the good stuff. I'm thinking a week is sufficient time for proposals to pass approval, as that gives everyone who's actually watching this page time to log in and turn the things over in their heads a few times. Thoughts? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
One week, maybe two. Either one works. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ammendments

Struck user cards from good cards per proposal on playing user cards. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Deck-building rules

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: While rules like this one may make deck-building tedious, deck-building is typically done in advance anyway. Players must balance the following ratios when building their decks: *Good users to bad users (1:1)

  • Total good cards to total bad cards (1:1)
  • Only one of any instant card per 50 cards per deck (i.e., you may only have one "Edit conflict" per 50-99 card deck, two per 100-149 card deck)
  • Only one of any Wikipedia card per deck (i.e., you may only have one "WikiProject Animals" per deck)
  • Only one of any card with a unique proper name per deck (i.e., you may only have one "Jimbo" per deck)
  • At least one good article with no special text is required as part of the game setup; this card counts toward the good deck totals
  • At least 50 cards per deck (both decks should total at least 100)
  • 50-53 cards: 8 article cards
  • 54-59 cards: 9 article cards
  • 60-65 cards: 10 article cards
  • To calculate how many article cards a deck should contain, divide it by 6 and ignore the remainder. This applies to both the good deck and the bad deck.
  • All cards must be genuine and issued by the Wikipedia trading card game developers

Dependencies: These deck-building rules are designed to accommodate the previous proposals and should be reconsidered entirely if the proposals fail.

Comments

As you said, if the proposals pass. Otherwise, it looks like you did a very good job. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ammendments

Striking bit about user cards per proposal on playing user cards. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: Once an article is in play, there is no "ownership" of the article. Anyone may play on/promote this article. In order to keep track of whose card the article card is, it is a usually good idea to orient the card upright for the player who owns the card, and edit cards may be laid in multiple "trains" from the card similar to domino trains.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Look at what you said: "there is no 'ownership' of the article ... for the player who owns the card..." Figure out your contradictions, and then I shall pass judgement. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL...Ownership of a card and ownership of the article are two separate concepts. By ownership of the card, I mean "this card is one I purchased and it's staying in my possession once the game's over", as opposed to "this is mine, no one can play on it". Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow... How did I miss that? :P ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Um...maybe you were eating a sandwich while you read it? I dunno. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Playing an edit card

Rule: This is the procedure for playing an edit card:

  • It must be the said player's turn
  • The player must have the edit card he wishes to play in his hand.
  • The player must have a user available in play that has appropriate rights to perform the said edit (autoconfirmed, rollbacker, admin, etc).

There are various types of edit cards, so the appropriate procedure should be carried out in playing them.

  • Rights-granting cards: Played on any user in play. The user receiving the edit is endowed with these rights. This card is not discarded until the rights are revoked.
  • Protection cards: Played on any article in play. The article receiving the edit is granted the said level of protection. This card is not discarded unless protection is removed from the article.
  • Stats-altering cards: Played on a good user or good article in play. The user/article receiving the edit has its stats altered until the beginning of the next turn, when the card is discarded.
  • Promotion cards: Played on a good article in play. The article receiving the edit is promoted the number of levels specified. The card is not discarded until the article is discarded.
  • Policing cards: Played on a bad card in play. The card receiving the edit is treated according to special text on the card.

Edit cards may contain special text. The special text is in effect as long as the edit card is still in play.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

  1. Looks good, as long as we use some sort of centijimbo thing like I said on the talk page.
  2. Also good. I take it only an admin can use these?
  3. Well, obviously.
  4. Yes, all though I think that we should come up with some sort of system other than just putting the card on it.
  5. Looks fine.

~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, protection cards would require admin rights in order to play them. As for the rights/promotion, I'm thinking we should do away with those two if we're using cJ. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Barnstars just crossed my mind. Perhaps we could include Award edit cards that are played on another editor's userspace, donating a small amount of cJ to them. The motivation for doing this is simple-- if the opponents are unable to stop vandalism, then all the pressure is on the ones who can. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that we should leave out barnstars, personally. Not sure why, I just don't like the idea. Also, I was thinking, for the promotion and rights cards, I was thinking that we would still have them as cards, but implement the CJs at the same time. That way, once you get enough CJs, you still need to get the card. In a minute, I'll formally propose all of this. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, more than one way to skin a cat. Love it! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Playing an instant card

Rule: An instant card may be played at any time during the game, even interrupting another player's actions. The instant functions the same as an edit card except that it can be played at any time.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Centijimbos (among other things)

Proposed by: ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!)

Rule: A system for using centijimbos.

  • As you play cards to improve an article, you get the following amounts of centijimbos for each improvement you make.
    • No Improve card. Stub. 1 Centijimbo
    • 1 Improve cards = Start class: 2 Centijimbos
    • 2 Improve cards = "C" class: 4 Centijimbos
    • 3 Improve cards = "B" class: 6 Centijimbos
    • 4 Improve cards = GA: 8 Centijimbos
    • 5 Improve cards = "A" class: 10 Centijimbos
    • 6 Improve cards = FA: 15 Centijimbos
  • These amounts would each be put on the various improvement cards, and people would need to keep track of them on their own.
  • As you collect centijimbos, you gain the ability to gain various user rights. The following is a list of user rights, in the order that you can get them, with the amount of centijimbos needed.
    • Anonymous - 0 centijimbos (obviously).
    • Registered - 10 centijimbos.
    • Auto-confirmed - 25 centijimbos.
    • Rollback/Account creator - 50 centijimbos for the first, 60 for the second. These could be gotten in either order, depending on which you want, but both are needed to get Administrator.
    • Administrator - 100 centijimbos.
    • Bureaucrat - 200 centijimbos.
    • Jimbo! - 300 centijimbos.
  • Instead of "spending" centijimbos, you would, when you get to each amount, be able to get that right, if you have the corresponding card. Example: I get one article to "C" class. I now can become Registered. On my next turn, a draw a Registered card. I now can play it in my userspace, and I become registered.
  • The total amount of centijimbos that you would have to win the game, if article improvement is the only way to get them, is 690. I think that that number is far too high, but the centijimbo amounts for article improvement seem fine to me. I propose to lower the number of FAs needed to 8, which would lead only to 368 centijimbos, which seems like a more manageable number to me. I have ranked the amounts needed for each right according to that.

Dependencies: A jimbo card, the use of centijimbos, lowering the number of FAs needed to 8, and using these particular user rights.

Comments

Drat, edit conflict, and I lost my thoughts, lol. Oh well.

  • I'd like to request we drop the DYK class from the list-- I strongly encourage DYK'ers to attempt fivefold expansion rather than submitting stubs. It's something to actually be proud of and it raises the standard for Wikipedia to something greater. Upon removing DYK, we can say article stub creation produces a single cJ. Stubs are valuable, too. :)
  • I have no objection to lowering the number of FA's. I thought 15 was pretty high, too.
  • Great method for earning points, as well as point assignment.
  • Alright, a scorepad will be ideal for keeping track of cJ.
  • I'd recommend the access level cards not be counted in the deck totals. They can easily be included in starter sets or sold in a foil packet for those who don't want to buy a starter set.

I think that's all I was gonna say... :) Keep the good ideas coming! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get rid of the DYK bit. I'm glad I didn't sound too crazy! :P ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User Rights

Proposed by: ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!)

Rule: This is a proposal for what user rights should be used, and for what they can do.

    • Anonymous - The way you start out. Nothing special.
    • Registered - You can begin to create other articles.
    • Auto-confirmed - Use edit cards on protected article cards.
    • Rollback - Can remove bad edit cards.
    • Account creator - Can play more "User" cards, up to two extra. What I am thinking is this: You start out without a user card, you are just upgrading yourself. Once you get this right, you can play user cards that might be in your deck, that give you certain abilities. This would replace the "Userboxes" idea proposed earlier.
    • Administrator - Can "block" bad user cards, and can "delete" bad article cards.
    • Bureaucrat - Can prevent a bad user card from coming into play, regardless of if it is their turn or not.
    • Jimbo! - Can remove bad policies.
  • I think that "Jimbo!" should have the exclamation point, for obvious reasons. :)
  • I don't think that any other right cards would be necessary; I think that it would get to be too much.

Dependencies: None, I think.

Comments

Hmmmm. The account creator access level doesn't really lend itself well to the trading card game. This is a role very few people even have a good reason to do, so I don't see why it needs to be included in this game. Also, I'm really not liking the idea of playing "users" anyway, as it is a bit resemblent to puppetry.

Other than that, good work. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did think of something else just now-- the beaurocrat should be able to prevent up to one bad user from coming into play per turn, rather than having some strange immunity to everything. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That 'crat thing wouldn't really work, as admins can already do that. Unless, of course, you mean that it doesn't have to be their turn, which I like and am changing it to. Also, for account creator, I think that is is fine, because people sometimes have sevreal alternates; more than two, definitely. I suppose I just wanted to keep userboxes out of it. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting twist there with the beaurocrat...didn't mean that, actually, but I like it. I guess I'm defining "block" and "prevent" differently. With "block", as in real life, the vandal comes onto the scene, does his job, and then the admin finds out and blocks all further action immediately. With the beaurocrat, he can actually prevent certain usernames from being registered, so in order to exercise that in the game, the first vandal turned over each turn would instantly be blocked before he can vandalize and before any special text on the card can be exercised. Also-- in a moment I'll post on the talk page-- I think I need to clear up what I'm talking about with the userboxes. I still don't like the account creator as one of the access levels represented in the game, but I'd like to hear someone else's opinion on this as well before that bit of the rule gets denied. As for the rest, it's all great. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that your 'crat thing ties in to mine, so that'll work. As for ACC, it is a pretty weird idea. I won't object if it is denied, but someone else's opinion would be good. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 21:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Card #2

Proposed by: ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!)

Rule: Have a Jimbo card that is the highestrank a a user card can get to. I'm open to suggestions on what it could do, though. :)

Dependencies: We would need to use the system of giving your user card various rights.

Comments

Hmmmm. Perhaps there could be a Wikipedia class card which would act as a sort of global policy. Not sure what special text it might have, though. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User Card(s)

Proposed by: ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!)

Rule: Instead of just having rights cards that you play, and it increses your rank, you would have a "user" card, that you play those on. The user card could have some sort of special text that gives you a special ability throughout the game, regardless of what rights you have.

Dependencies: User rights.

Comments

Actually, this is a very interesting suggestion...but I'm gonna suggest a slight modification:

I think if you went this route, it would work best with user rights and without userboxes, since userboxes are more static per individual editor in real life than access levels are. If the user card had some sort of special text on it that said, for instance, "Earn an additional 5 cJ for each constructive edit to articles relating to computers," that would encourage players to go out and get expansion cards in hopes of finding either computer-related article cards or a different user card that applied to more of their article cards they owned. Expandability = profit for Wikimedia ;) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm... That is exactly what I was thinking. :) A user card, with special text, that you play your rights cards on. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay

Proposed by: Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis)

Rule: Before making any decisons on what is the process of playing the game, we need to decide how we will play it. Since the disaster style as been chosen, I'd like to add my idea of how we will play it (it's more of a combo of the ideas already proposed.) I will start an imaginary game for this example:

The idea: Instead of vandals running the show ("I'm gonna vandalise your article!" or "My article got vandalise!",) vandals are random events that happen while you're trying to reach the goal (see below) before your opponent. Approved

Goal: Get 15 (more or less?) articles to "Featured article" status before your "opponents". Approved

  • Let's assume the game has two players.
  • Each player will have two decks of cards: a action deck (Admin, Rollback, Checkuser, etc.) and a event deck (vandalism, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, etc.) Approved All players start out with the defualt 200 Centijimbos.  Inconclusive
  • A starting player will be randomly chosen (coin toss, dice/die roll, etc.) Approved
  • The players take out 6 (more or less?) cards from the action deck. (Every time an action card is used, an event card must also be pulled out from the event deck and used, except for the first turn of course.) There should be at least one "New Article" card in each player's hand. If not, put the hand on the bottom of the deck and try again. Approved
  • The "New Article" card is played (one by each player. All articles start out as stubs.) Approved A "New Category" can also be played instead.  Inconclusive
  • All used action and event cards are put into a "graveyard". They are reshuffled after the respective decks have run out of cards. Approved
  • To advance an article, you add an "Improve" card to an article. When you improve an article, you earn a certain amount of Centijimbos from your opponent. (If your opponent doesn't have enough Centijimbos, they sacrifice a turn.)
  • No Improve card. Stub. No Centijimbos
  • 1 Improve card = DYK: 2 Centijimbos
  • 2 Improve cards = Start class: 4 Centijimbos
  • 3 Improve cards = "C" class: 8 Centijimbos
  • 4 Improve cards = "B" class: 16 Centijimbos
  • 5 Improve cards = GA: 32 Centijimbos
  • 6 Improve cards = "A" class: 64 Centijimbos
  • 7 Improve cards = FA: 128 Centijimbos

 see related proposal, this has been revised

Centijimbos are then used to become admin, rollbacker, etc. (This adds an in-game goal, and limits how easily the game can be played.) Approved

Vandalism and No. of players:  Denied

  • Two player game: Each player represents a separate entity. When vandalism happens to, say, Player A's article, only Player A can revert it. (Note that Player B did not inflict the vandalism onto the article. It was simply a Random Event.)
  • Three players: See below.
  • Four or more: If there are four players, then Player A and Player B team up to form Entity A. The same goes for Player C and D: Entity B. Then, if vandalism happens to Player A, Player B can revert it. (Kind of like Euchre, in a way.) It is possible that Player A and B could team up against Player C, but C would have to have a really good deck. Otherwise, it wouldn't be very fair. :)

Here's what it might look like.

Dependencies: This allows players to have a psuedo-battle-style game, while promoting the disaster style of Wikipedia. Again, it's mostly a combo of other ideas, so feel free to give suggestions. :)

Comments

  • Let's not play as "opponents", but rather as "co-editors". Teams would be like "task forces" or "projects" in that they have a common interest but no desire to hurt the other editors. (I'm going to elaborate in a proposal I'll submit shortly).
  • Rather than drawing and discarding an entire hand during setup, players should locate a new article card with no special text (text that adds rules to the game) and place it in play. The decks are exchanged and shuffled by the player to the left, then returned, and a hand of six cards is drawn.
  • I like the idea of CJ being used to attain adminship and other rights. Those would be very handy for distinguishing red/green/blue cards etc. I also like how the proposal isn't encouraging sockpuppeting. The method of counting CJ (although clever) is a bit shaky...adding numbers like 128, 32, and 2 together lots of times could get confusing. Surely there is a better way we can keep track of CJ.

Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that all of these ideas were very good, but there are a couple of things I don't quite like. First of all, I agree with Bob's second and third points. And while I'm talking about what Bob said, I think that the first thing that you said is pointless; I doubt anyone would care, calling yourselves "task forces" is like the "optional" questions in RfAs. I also have one other thing, that has to do with the Centijimbos. If I read what you wrote correctly, you are saying that each person starts out with 20 centijimbos, and as you improve your article, you take them away from your oponent. If we want to go with the whole "Improving Wikipedia" thing, I think we should keep each other's centijimbo count separate. And after saying all of that, I did interpret what you wrote correctly, right? :P ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I wasn't actually trying to bring vocabulary into it, but rather point out that this proposal brought in the suggestion of opposition during the vandalism bit, suggesting that players intentionally vandalize their opponents' article spaces. Ha, strange vocabulary is the last thing we need-- for practical purposes, "opponent" and "team" are perfect words. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob:

  • 1. Yes, Co-editors is probably much better than opponents.
  • 2. I like that idea, but how exactly would the player find the article card? Would they have to dig through the deck?
  • 3. Perhaps something easier to add (like 10s) would be sufficient.

Hi878: Maybe adding a "wikicurrency" might not be the best idea. :D Here's an idea: If an editor gets his/her article card to FA status before other editor(s), the other articles can't be FA, and have to start over. (We still use the Centijimbos to create "admins" and "rollbackers". But if you run out of Centijimbos, and need more, you have to pull out one of your "editor" card that has Centijimbos on your next turn (Out of play that is.) Since that would count as one action, the editor would have to end their turn.) To limit people from winning simply by having a lot of Centijimbos, we limit the amount of Centijimbos editors can have to 200. In other words, Centijimbos are used for promoting editors only and if an article gets promoted to FA, all the other articles have to "start over". And yes, you interpreted it perfectly. :) --Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 02:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mith--
  • Yes, they'd dig through the deck. That's why the deck is shuffled by an opponent following finding the card. Ever played dominoes? Before each round, players search for the double-six or whatever number corresponds to the current round, and then the dominoes are turned over and scrambled on the table. Same concept, only it's much easier to thumb through a deck than to turn over one domino at a time.
  • You might as well submit your featured article ideas as a new proposal. I'd make a change to your rule, though, to say that only one article may be featured at a time and that the same player who featured the article can't feature during the next round.
  • Hmmm. as far as CJ goes, I'd stick to small numbers. After all, adding 40 and 60 is just like adding 4 and 6. If we're counting by tens, might as well just use 1-20 instead of 10-200. Magic uses a 20 point system which has proven to work fairly well-- players can keep track of that pretty easily with 20 counter stones in a designated spot. Besides, what editor really has more than 5 or 6 CJ in real life? I haven't calculated my CJ, but I've got fewer than 30 watchers after all these years, which is probably less than 1 CJ. Therefore, I'd say 20 is a fair max. Whew. Talk about a lot of words to say a couple things...someone needs to revise the English language, lol. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This proposal has a lot of parts to it. Tomorrow I'm planning on adding the noncontroversial portions to the approved ruleset, but the rest of it is still up for debate. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The "article" card makes sense to me-- but could someone explain what a "category" card would look like/do? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I went through and marked most of these wonderful ideas in this proposal as approved. There are still a couple spots needing work, and the vandalism idea has been overruled. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Playing an article card

Approved Rule: This is the procedure for playing an article card:

  • It must be the said player's turn
  • The player must not have played any action type cards yet (instant or edit) and must not have attempted to clean up a problem yet.
  • The player must have the article card he wishes to play in his hand.
  • The player places the article card in his mainspace.

Immediately upon playing the article card, any special text on the card takes effect.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

  • I think that this should be similar to what I said for "User" cards; you play one at the beginning, before the game actually starts. Then, there could be some sort of system for upgrading the article cards that gets you centijimbos, which can let you upgradethe user card. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Right, there will be an article in play prior to the beginning of the game per an already-approved rule. Also, on the note of upgrading the user card, I absent-mindedly included "rights-granting" and "promotion" edit card categories in my proposal below. Both methods for aren't necessary, that's for sure. I think I prefer the cJ-spending method, though we need to figure out how folks earn centijimbos in order for that to work. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've given a basic idea for the centijimbos on the talk page; take a look and comment there. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, where do you stand on this proposal? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I like it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Handling vandal users

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: A vandal can be reported, prevented, or blocked. Vandals which successfully come into play without being prevented can no longer be prevented.

Preventing a vandal requires administrator user access level and also the sacrifice of five edit cards.

If sacrificial edit cards are used to prevent a vandal, the vandal and all five sacrificed cards are discarded immediately. The special text on the vandal card has no effect, and the sacrificed cards' texts are ignored entirely.

Sometimes a prevention may be excercised with a Wikipedia card, provided the card is already in play before the vandal comes into play. If the prevention is done using a Wikipedia card, the Wikipedia card remains in play and the vandal card is discarded with no effect.

Reporting a vandal card may be performed by a user with a sacrificial edit, provided the appropriate access level is met for the card. Once the card is played, the affected vandal remains in play until the next turn of the player who reported, special text remaining in effect until both the reporting card and the vandal are discarded at the beginning of that player's turn.

If a user has the administrator access level or higher, he may issue a block immediately on his own turn. A sacrificial edit card will allow one vandal to be blocked, and the administrator may block as many vandals as he is able to sacrifice edit cards in one turn. When an administrator blocks a vandal, the vandal and blocking card are discarded immediately.

If an administrative user chooses to speed up a report issued by another player, he may do so on his own turn, exercising the block with a sacrificial edit.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

I like it. The AIV thing was a nice touch. Good job. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it entertaining that while I was writing that, you reported vandals... :D Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad you liked it. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Ammendment: Rather than polluting the game with too many new card types, how about if a report is done by using any edit card that the user has the appropriate rights for, but ignoring its ability? After all, in real life, reporting vandals does cost valuable editing time. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Good metaphor. :) Go for it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Updated the proposal accordingly. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Prevention, thanks to the CRASH policy and the edit filter, no longer requires just b'crats... —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 03:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You know...I'm thinking CRASH sounds like it would be a great Wikipedia-class card. Mind linking to it? I've not heard of it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just had another look at the user access levels page. Admins are able to prevent users from registering since that's part of the "block" permission. However, It would appear admins can't add or remove bots...I'll modify this proposal accordingly and shoot an ammendment out in a minute. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominating an article or policy for deletion

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: Bad articles find their way onto Wikipedia all the time. Unfortunately, administrator intervention is required to clean them up.

If a user is not an administrator, he may sacrifice an edit card to nominate the article for deletion. At the beginning of his next turn, the article is discarded.

If the user is an administrator, he may sacrifice an edit card and immediately discard the article. However, bad Wikipedia policies must be nominated for deletion using the above procedure.

If the user is Jimbo, an edit card may be sacrificed in order to remove the Wikipedia policy from play immediately.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

I like it. Good job. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) It feels good to have made progress tonight... Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: Vandalous edits are played constantly in the game, just like in real life. In fact, a vandal isn't even required to be in play in order for vandalism to occur. That's right...anonymous IP's can vandalize, too. An article may not receive a constructive edit until all vandalism has been reverted.

In order to tackle vandalism, a few approaches can be taken:

A. Any edit card may be sacrificed in order to repair an article, so long as the player has the appropriate access levels to play the card. All special text on the substituted card is ignored. The vandalism card and edit card are both discarded. Multiple edit cards may be sacrificed for multiple levels of vandalism.
B. If there are multiple levels of vandalism on an article, or if the article is protected from that user's access level, the user may sacrifice an edit card to report the vandalism. At the beginning of the user's next turn, all vandalism is cleared from the article.
C. If the user is a rollbacker, a single edit card may be sacrificed to revert all vandlism on a single article immediately.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

When I saw the edit summary, I thought that someone had vandalized the page. :P Anyways, I think that instead of having to report the vandalism if there is a lot, you should just have to play one edit card for each bit. If it is protected, however, they should report it. Also, I think that it should be stressed that an article cannot upgrade while there is vandalism in it. Anyways, besides that change, I like it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, those are reasonable ammendments. I like all those ideas. I think we may have ourselves a game. I need to go vectorize a totem pole now for my graphic design class. Let's let this set for a week and if we don't come up with any more holes needing filled, I'd say it's time to move along to the next phase. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bots

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: This rule repeals the current status of the bureaucrat's privileges and modifies them so that bureaucrats may play, block, and prevent bots. Administrators are also granted the rights to block and prevent bots.

Bots come in two forms. Bots are User-class cards, added to the userspace. A bot is endowed with special text stating that bot's function. Here is an example of what a bot might have as its special text:

At the beginning of each player's turn, add a counter to an article about an animal. When an article has five counters, the article advances one rank.

Once the article advances in rank, the cJ earned are given to the owner of the bot.

A bot may only be brought into play by a beaurocrat or Jimbo, but each bot has an emergency stop button that may be activated by any administrative-level vandal, administrative-level vandlization, or vandalous bot. It is re-activated at the beginning of the owner's next turn, and no bot edits may occur on a turn when it is being activated (including the turn the bot is introduced on).

A bad bot is found in the bad deck and does not require any vandal to be in play. Unlike a good bot, its first edit occurs as soon as it is brought into existence and is carried out at the beginning of each player's turn following that.

A player with administrative privileges may hit the emergency shutoff button on a bad bot by sacrificing an edit card. This is done during the action phase of the turn. The emergency shutoff of a bad bot lasts only for the next player's turn, and the bot continues wreaking havoc on the following player's turn. The following scenario illustrates maximum potential of the emergency stop button on a bad bot:

Player A's turn. Bad bot brought into game. Bad bot makes a move. Player A sacrifices an edit to hit the emergency stop button.
Player B's turn.
Player C's turn. Bad bot makes a move. Player C sacrifices an edit to hit the emergency stop button.

...etc...

Bots may be blocked, prevented, and played by beaurocrats and Jimbo. Bots may be reported or shut off at any level. Bots may be shut off by administrators.

If a bot is reported, it is allowed to complete a full round as normal and a final edit on the next turn of the player who reported it, after which it is discarded.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Almost perfect. :) I think that only an admin or higher should be able to shut off the bot, but I also think that admins should also be able to block/remove them. I think that the only extra thing that Bureaucrats and Jimbo should be able to do, with regards to bots, is adding good ones into the game. Does that seem reasonable? Also, would anyone get Centijimbos if a bot upgrades an article? Would the 'crat/Jimbo that played the bot get them, or would nobody get any? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 18:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Great questions/observations!
  • ...only an admin or higher should be able to shut off the bot... -- Whoops! You're right. I'd never noticed before that normal users can't do this (even though the button appears for all users).
  • ...admins should also be able to block/remove them. -- Hmmm. I'm not finding anything on this at the moment, but I assume you know what you're talking about here.
  • Does that seem reasonable? - Yup.
  • ...would anyone get Centijimbos if a bot upgrades an article? -- This is the part where having counters with your set is important. There are various types of counters; my favorite are the stones found in Mancala and purchasable in sets by color. I find it's generally a good idea to have at least two or three color sets available, as it's important to remember the purpose of a counter (for example, counters often represent several things like damage/hit points/poison; in this game they can represent things like article-rank / bot-edits / etc). Five bot edits constitute one normal edit (this number might be high-- only testing can tell). The owner of the bot would receive the cJ each time a fifth counter is added to a particular article.
I made the requested changes above.
I'm out of proposals. Got any more? If not, I'll move Stage 2 out of my userspace and into this project's subpages. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've tweaked what I think a tad. The whole bit about shutting off the bot temporarily should be done away with; an admin+ can block the bot, a bureaucrat+ can prevent it, and anyone can do the reporting thing. It seems redundant to have shutting off and blocking. Also, in regards to your assumption that I know what I'm talking about, you should never assume that with me. :) However, I was thinking that a bot is an account, and an account can be blocked by an admin. I think you might have misinterpreted what I said. Anyhoo, I like where we are now, but I think that one of us (preferrably you... :P) should go through the rules written above, and make sure that it all makes sense, and that nothing is missing. Also, I think that we should get a third opinion, just because we both may have missed something important. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
All members of this project were notified a week ago that the rules were ready for review, and a notice was also placed on the project's talk page. Response level: One editor came and commented on this page. I'll put a notice up on the noticeboard asking for folks to review the rules as soon as I modify the layout of this page in a way that will encourage amendment proposals.
Right...shutting down the bot might get a little too complicated for enjoyable gameplay. Removing it now... Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, since almost nobody has come and commented, I think we should just head to phase 2 as soon as you check through the rules. :P ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
In that case, I'll go ahead and finish setting up Phase 2 as soon as I integrate the new proposals into the ruleset. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Userbox-class cards

31 October 2010

Rule: The userspace will be used to grant extra special abilities to a player. Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Cards which may be played in the userspace are called Userboxes.

Examples of possible userboxes:

  • Computer expert: Your edits to computer-related articles count as double.
  • Highly Active User: Throughout the course of this game, you are permitted to play a total of three normal edit cards as though they were instants.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Click here to see an archive of the original comments. Keep in mind that views may have changed since the retraction and reproposal.
  • Seems like a good idea. However, that should also be where the "User" card is (unless we just have it separate), and where we would put whatever rights you might have gotten, like Rollback or Adminship. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reproposing this (after having retracted it originally) since it's just so tempting and two current proposals lend themselves better to this card class than any class that exists at the moment. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Support,I do CanvasHat 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I support (obviously). ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Change of "prevent" to "block"

Proposed by: Hi878 (talk)

Rule: In the list of what each user right can do, for administrators, change "may prevent bots" to "may block bots". The only way I can think of for bots to be prevented would be BAG, and you don't need to be an admin to be in that.

Comments

Support. Prevent refers here to blacklisting the username so it can't be registered. However, I can see now why that might be a better choice. After all, if bot prevention only requires being active in WP:BAG, perhaps it might be appropriate to add to the Registered UAL that it may prevent bots. The required sacrifice at admin level even is 5 edits, so it's not like players would be able in most circumstances to block a bot with what they might have on hand at the moment. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Only registered users with the card that I have proposed. Did you notice that I made these two proposals at the same time? :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm lost. You're saying that bot prevention should be eliminated with the exception of the WP:BAG userbox card. Right? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Ja. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Great. :) I like it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


Sacrificing an edit card

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: Sacrificing an edit card to counteract "bad" cards does not generate any new bad events. This is necessary in order to prevent a "Pandora's box" situation from occurring.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Ja. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked your wording. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


Eliminating domino training of edit cards

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: In order to prevent the problem of forgetting whose cards are whose, the domino train method for playing edit cards may be eliminated by enforcing a counter method. (Counters are usually stones, chips, or paper squares.) By using counters, edit cards may be discarded immediately to the appropriate discard pile upon being played. This also allows for game twists that may involve promoting without an edit card or demoting.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Go for it. I was just wondering how to eliminate that problem. However, what about cards in the "bad" deck? How would you remember? And with WP-space cards? Would you just out a counter on them so that you know it is yours? Would that just be the standard thing for non-article cards? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, bad Wikipedia cards and Vandals go into your Wikipedia space and User space, respectively. But currently, vandalism cards are just being dominoed onto articles. I think you're right, though...a colored counter would be an effective way to list a regular vandalism, and if there are any special details, it's never a bad idea to carry a pad of small (2 inch) post-it notes when you play a trading card game-- they have so many uses! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I think we both said the same thing, so I'm happy. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Discord class

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule: The Vandalism class is getting lots of proposals that aren't article-specific and not even necessarily vandalism. This is due to the fact that there's currently no action category for non-vandalism.

A new class, Discord, would encompass things like server outages, accidentally deleting the main page, etc.-- things that don't get played specifically on an article.

Dependencies: A few vandalism proposals will need recategorized.

Comments

Seems reasonable. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of bad cards

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Rule:

How bad cards work

At the beginning of each turn, perform the following:

  • Follow instructions on all bad bots in your userspace, then bad bots in the userspace of the player to your left, continuing counterclockwise until all bad bots have performed their duties. Any bad cards called into play by the bots take effect immediately, but ignore any instructions on the freshly played bad cards for more bad cards to be drawn.
  • Follow the same procedure with all vandals in play.

Following each edit card you play (with the exception of sacrifices), turn over a new bad card and put it into play.

Vandals

Vandals are placed into your userspace. Vandals sport a special text instruction that comes into play immediately. Some vandals may cause more bad cards to be turned over; some may require extra sacrifices; the possibilities are endless. Many vandals will require vandalism phase maintenance at the beginning of each turn or certain turns. If during the vandalism phase a vandal causes a card to be turned over from the bad card deck, the new card's text is followed immediately, except for any requests for more bad cards to be drawn.

Vandalism

Vandalism works like the opposite of and Edit card. Unless otherwise specified, distribute a vandalism counter to the appropriate article. The method for determining which article to vandalize has not been finalized yet. Follow any special text on the card, and then discard it.

Vandalism on an article prevents it from receiving any positive edits until all vandalism is cleared from that article.

Discord

Occasionally, bad things happen that were not of vandalous origin. Things like the servers experiencing an outage can happen. When a discord card is played, follow its text, and discard it when finished.

Bad bot

A bot is a supervandal. Bots are capable of producing massive amounts of edits in a short period of time. As such, a poorly programmed bot can wreak havoc quickly on an array of articles. Most bad bots will require one or more vandalism counters to be distributed at the beginning of each turn to articles.

Bad policy

A bad policy functions much like a discord card, except that it remains in play until deleted.

Bad articles

A bad article is one that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. These cards go into the article space and stay there until they are deleted. These articles may not receive vandal counters.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Alright, sounds good. One thing, though: the game ends if there are five or more bad cards in play for an entire round; would that include vandalism counters on the articles? Or should we have it be something along the lines of "three vandalism counters is the same as one bad card"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi878 (talk • contribs)

Um...yeah. Vandalized articles ought to be tallied differently somehow...perhaps three vandalized articles constitute one bad card? Otherwise we may need to increase the count to 10 or 20. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I take it you mean three vandalism counters on articles? Just three vandalised articles isn't good enough, in my opinion. If it is three counters, I support. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant articles. But seeing your opinion on that, I'll agree with your proposition for three counters instead. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Remind about 1-time use

Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Rule: Restate in both descriptions of instant cards that they're only for 1-time use.

Comments

Sounds good to me. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to. However, it should also be said that they are moved to the discard pile after the one-time use. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point-- they are to be discarded, not removed from play. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If we're running on the assumption that the rulebook says instant cards are (a) one-use, and (b) head to the bin after use, then there's no need to redundantly indicate either. We'd only need to spell it out if something different happens (i.e. the card instead gets RFG'd). The golden rule is: In cases where rules and card contradict, the card trumps the rules. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't make sense for a single-use card to be useless the second time it's drawn. Single-use refers to the fact it only has a single use before it is discarded. Once it's drawn again, it's single-use again. Single-use here is being used to indicate the card doesn't return to your hand immediately after playing. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
And, again, if the rules state that's exactly what happens, why redundantly say so on the card? —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
No one said anything about stating it on the card; we're discussing restating it in the rules, although I'm not sure where. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that he meant that it should be emphasized in the rules, not written again. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple copies of cards

Proposed by: Nicky Nouse (talk · contribs · count · logs) 20 December 2010

Rule: Some cards should have a marker on them that allows them to be used only a certain amount of times per deck. That way, there could be cards that are slightly more or less common.

Comments

I like that idea; I see absolutely no problems with it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Neat idea, what sort of mark are you thinking of? Perhaps a watermark over the corner? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This brings up a good question, as it seems to contradict the "Highlander/Insanity" style of deck design as writ. Are we assuming that, w/o the indication, only one copy of each card is permitted per deck? —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Jeremy, I don't think we should have it be like that for every card. Bob, we could just say something about it in the card text. Something like "You may only have x of these cards in your deck." ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 21:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll agree here with Hi's suggestion. As it is, there are restrictions on cards with proper names, Wikipedia-class cards, and instant-class cards. This can be extended, if seen fit, to cover other classes of cards as well.
While we're on the subject, see my proposal below. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking more of a symbol next to the CJ count. A star or something with the allowed number on top of it. The text works too, though. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
That could easily be added next to the lock as needed. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus, then? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The text in green represents the Approved proposal. 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Action to take when a deck runs out

  • Rule: See comment section; we're just trying to come up with one we all agree upon.
  • Dependencies: None.
  • Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Comments We've got several options here. Canvas brought up the concern of what happens when a deck runs out. Hi has suggested this be optional (with the alternative being to flip and shuffle the discard pile), Jeremy has suggested when a deck runs out the owner of the deck loses at the beginning of his next turn (correct me if I'm mistaken). I'll suggest that since it's a collaborative game, all players (as opposed to the deck owner) lose if any deck (good or bad) runs out. Ideas are welcome, we just want to all agree on something that can be adopted as a rule since this isn't covered yet. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggested at the beginning of the next turn, and I think that if we do a deckout win condition that would be the fairest way to do it, if all players lose once a deck runs out. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 05:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I like my idea (big surprise). People can do this how they want; it isn't as if they can't go "Huh. I don't like that. I'll do it this way instead." So that people with overactive conciensces don't feel bad, we should allow both, stating that "If you want a faster game, do it this way. However, if you have a lot of time on your hands, you might want to do it this way." I know that with board games, such as Monopoly, they have speedy-game variants in the rules for people with less time. Why can't we do the same sort of thing. Another ting to consider is that it isn't as if it would hurt to have both options; what bad things would come of it, exactly? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't object to having both options, but from personal experience the longer a game goes the more likely the players are going to quit the game and do something else out of boredom. (Monopoly is a good example; I've never played a complete game of it.) —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind it being optional, so long as players agree before the game begins. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Approved portion is shown in green. 02:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Winning conditions

  • Rule: In addition to the preexisting winning conditions, no featured articles may hold any vandalism.
  • Dependencies: None known.
  • Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Comments

Well, duh! Support, obviously. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. No point in winning if Shadows have Sora by the shoulders. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Approved 02:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

CentiJimbos (cJ)

  • Rule: Earned cJ may never be lost, and may only be earned by player-induced edits. The player who performs the edit receives the cJ.
  • Dependencies: None known.
  • Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) in honor of Hi's persistance.

Comments

Thank you! You are my hero! And why the hell didn't I propose this? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm still wondering that myself. Speaking of which, I've got one I should probably go ahead and propose since I keep having to say it over and over (and it's even bitten me). Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So then, it's kind of like your edit count? —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in a sense. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Approved 02:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Card-design rule (this applies to card design, not to the rulebook itself)

Shortcut
  • Rule: Obscenities (foul language) or distasteful themes (including, but not limited to discrimination of any people, with the exception of vandals) is valid ground for rejecting a proposal.
  • Dependencies: None.
  • Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

Comments

We've had this come up a few times now, namely "WP:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia" (even though the theme wasn't offensive, the card itself failed to convey the intended message without sounding hateful), a card stating residents of Singapore could not use it to its full capacity, and several "dick" cards, as well as a "shit" card, too. These sorts of things don't convey the idea of fun that I stand for, and I'd like to think we can uphold a rated-G image for Wikipedia's trading card game. I'm aware Wikipedia isn't censored, but this is a friendly trading card game, not an encyclopedia. Big difference. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, though if the TCG gets an Magic Set Editor plugin (as, I believe, Pichoro is planning on once we have everything hashed out) we'd have to police everything. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 06:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely and totally. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 06:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Woah. I didn't expect such immediate and strong support at all! You'll have to excuse me for getting lost...what do you mean "we'd have to police everything"? We're already designing graphic representations of approved cards (as you can observe at http://wptcg.wiki.com/ ). Are you talking about testing software? I don't see where testing anything could cause a need for policing. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As stands the rule above applies to the flavor/theme and text of the card (incl. card name). If this game is added to MSE's list, anyone who has the relevant files (game and style) could contribute to the game, but we would need to vet each card made in this manner to prevent anything too objectionable from getting through. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 07:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Then it sounds like another proposal is in order, one which I thought was in the rules (but I checked and it's not a rule yet). Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 08:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The temptation card could link to WP:BIM, I know The don't be dense card could link to WP:Don't be dense or maybe WP:DENSE. m:DICK Is a core policy... But maybe we could use WP:Civility. And the the text in Durian could be done without.
WP:SOFIXIT--CanvasHat 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Approved 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Approved cards only

Comments

Created this proposal in response to Jeremy's comment in the previous proposal, which suggested we'd need to police any cards created by third parties under the table. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We could use a golden Wikipedia in the corner, Relatively heavy Laminated cards, Proof of Purchase, Watermarks, Blacklight text, Heavy Artillery, and Telescreens. Also, we have the TCG:ICA page, for verification. We could also use Serial numbers. But we still have to Assume Good Faith. But I will bet anything that most Forged TCG cards are just laminated sheets of paper --CanvasHat 14:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)14:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The way I see it, if players want to use their own self-designed cards, the only person who can stop them is an opponent (assuming the opponent cares). However, if we have official tournaments, the decks will need to be approved prior to the game anyway, so a verification that each card is at least one that has undergone approval is the least we can do there, with any cards that can be proven to have been fabricated serving as grounds for disqualification. Adding RFIDs or other security devices or requiring UPCs seems a bit extreme. But we can worry about that part later-- either during the printing or tournament design phase. The Big Brother idea is tempting, though I don't know if I'd want to watch players constantly on a monitor. Someone else would have to take that job. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You sure you're Canvashat and not Tinfoilhat? :P As I noted, Pichoro has got plans for a WPTCG template once we have card design and rules hashed out, which can both improve the quality of the game (by making designing cards for it possible by more people) or damage it (by making designing a P9 for it possible by more people). Hence, the suggestion that cards created by someone else be vetted before being added is a legitimate one, especially if Magic Set Editor does get involved. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 05:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
the Golden wikipedia and the heavy,laminated, shiny cards that can't bend easily, as well as serial numbers should be cheapCanvasHat 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Duh! Isn't it implied, my dear Bob? I obviously support the idea, though not necessarily Canvas'... Interesting (yes, that works) ideas. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree with CanvasHat— counterfeit cards will be played, it should just be pointed out that they're fake before gameplay. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If there are conterfeit cards that can be played, that are cheaper than ours, this would cause them to buy THEIR cards, or print of their own card. This will thus cripple our project. Therefore I would like to propose the use of a pict of the Wikipedia Logo ( like a sticker, heavy cards that are thicker than paper, requiring lamination and each card getting a serial number, as such.

(start with 100)100(Expansion pack)1(Rarity,001(common),020(uncommon,or 300(rare)...Promo cards will be 404)404(If Fauna 7, if User Type (not Box)4, If neither6)6-(Was this card the first of it's rarity to be accepted? if so, 001. If second, then 002. If third, 003) Some exampless. Ten:Wiki 10014046-001 WP:Autoconfirmed 10010014-003 WP:WikiOtter 10010207-001 --CanvasHat 14:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Approved 03:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Losing a turn

  • Rule: When a card says that you cannot make any more edits in a round, you cannot play any cards, including instants during other people's turns, until your next turn. The exception to this would be any "Block Appeal" type card.
  • Dependencies: None, as far as I know.
  • Proposed by: ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!)

Comments

Most of this was implied; the point was the no instants bit. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked it to add a bit about being able to use unblock cards. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me, I'll support. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN (talk • contribs) 04:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Trading_card_game/Rules/Approved&oldid=1145454871"