Monday, February 08, 2010

Error

Anybody know why the main page was screwed up last night? How was it fixed?

Test

Hi there,

I tried to post with this content:

For some reason, I cannot comment to my killed Proposal. As there were questions asked to me, Id like to answer here. Also there need to be space for discussion why this mysterious Server Error happened. The question “Is Purplebeard a murderer and needs to be arrested should not be discussed here. I (or someone else) will create a Crisis-Proposal, when one of these lazy Servants turns the light on…

At first, I am sorry for this wrong Proposal. I did not remember the “A Crisis may not be proposed or enacted while the Lights are Out.”  part of the Ruleset…

> Did you keep this post open in your browser for eight or so hours before posting it, incidentally, Keba? I’m fairly sure it wasn’t there the last time I read the blog last night, and nobody seems to have commented during the eight hours it was open.

No, after I have proposed my fix, I read some comments and then I wanted to propose a Crisis. The “Publish” tab was not open for more than 15 minutes, I think. I dont know whats the Problem with the time there, I proposed it at ~0.30 GMT. Additionally, I have not changed the Date directly.

Kind regards, Keba.

It did not work. I hope this Post will be seenable and right. If it is, the problem will be fixed, I think. If not, well, then its time for blognomic to use a good blog engine *hide*

Still dark

The manor has fallen eerily quiet, the silence broken only the whistling of the wind and the occasional cry of a distant owl.

(Under Rule 2.6, I have received no Dark Lists in the past 24 hours, and we are now into another phase of the Lights being Off.)

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Proposal: Fix to part three fix

In Rule 2.5 Bloodline replace “If two Guests should ever have the same degree, the Executor should choose one of those Guests at random and raise or lower their degree by 1.” with

If two Guests should ever have the same degree, the Executor should choose one of those Guests at random and raise their degree by 0.5.

If a new Guest arrives, he could mess up the order… See fix part three for details.

Idle

Greytyphoon goes idle. Quorum remains 15.

Proposal: Action in a Crisis

Enact a new subrule to Rule 2.3 (Crises), called “Taking Action”:-

If a Crisis would result in a Guest’s health state being altered, it can only be enacted if each of the Guests whose health state is being altered is present in the same Room as a Guest who voted FOR the Crisis.

If a Crisis would result in a Guest becoming Restrained or Arrested, it instead requires two of the Guests who voted FOR the Crisis to be present in the same Room as each Guest who is becoming Restrained or Arrested.

If a Crisis would result in a Guest becoming Arrested, it additionally requires one of the Guests who voted FOR the Crisis to be present in the Parlor (to make the phonecall to the police).

Also, to Rule 2.3, add:-

If a proposal would have no effect other than changing the health states of one or more Guests, the Executor may edit its title to make it into a Crisis.

Just a little common sense, so that I don’t have to surprise anyone by vetoing a Crisis on the grounds of “physically impossible” when you’re trying to Restrain someone who’s stuck alone in an Incident-locked Attic (and so that guests can shuffle things around to allow it to enact a little later, if things aren’t possible right away).

Also clarifying that health-state proposals have to be Crises, and giving me the power to just rename them if (as I think happened below) someone forgets.

Proposal: Crisis: As Purplebeard wants to…

Illegal Crisis: “A Crisis may not be proposed or enacted while the Lights are Out.”

Adminned at 08 Feb 2010 21:14:54 UTC

Set Purplebeard’s Status to Restrained, and his Location to the Basement.

If at least half of all EVCs on this Proposal contain the phrase “arrest this man”, set Purplebeard’s Status to Arrested.

Sunday, February 07, 2010

Proposal: Release Him!

Re adminned to mark as vetoed- Darknight

Adminned at 08 Feb 2010 22:20:01 UTC

Set alethiophile’s status to Healthy and Location to “Parlor”.

There are only two murderers. One of them is Ornithopter. The other one is still active based on the fact that he just wounded me. Looking at the Crisis which restrained alethiophile: http://blognomic.com/archive/crisis_lover_of_truth_my_foot/ there was much debate on whether he was a Detective or a Murderer. Now that he clearly cannot be a murderer, it most certainly is that he is a Detective. So release him from the Cell and have him comeback into the Manor.

Proposal: Hiding again

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Feb 2010 22:15:02 UTC

Add the following to the list of Dark List actions:
*A Guest may attempt to hide. The Executor shall determine if the hiding was successful with a 50% chance, and if it was, the guest becomes Missing. This action makes a clumping noise.
*A Guest who became missing due to hiding can unhide. Their statistics are set to what they were immediately before the guest last went hidden. This action makes a stomping noise.

Proposal: Sitting Ducks

Reached quorum 15 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Feb 2010 22:13:45 UTC

In Rule 2.6 (Lights), after “Upon taking this Action, if the Target is present in the same room as the Murderer, the Target becomes Wounded.”, add:-

(Unless the Target was Restrained, in which case they become Dead.)

Sometimes a handcuffed guest is a useful diversion for a murderer, sometimes it’s a generously easy target.

Incident: Lights Out

The wind howls, and somewhere in the gardens of Cartlesham Manor, an oak branch drops clean through the cables of the gazebo lighting. As the ancient wiring sparks and burns through, the entire house is plunged into darkness. In the stumbling confusion, a chaise longue in the library becomes wedged under the doorhandle, blocking the room for 24 hours.

(Note that the Master Bedroom also cannot be entered or left until 9:10pm on Saturday night.)

Friday, February 05, 2010

Proposal: Fix part Three

Vetoed as redundant, to clear the queue (an earlier proposal added a new sentence to the end of the “Bloodline” rule, so this would have no effect).

Adminned at 07 Feb 2010 22:13:05 UTC

In the Rule “Bloodline” remove “or lower” in the last sentence.

Imagine following situation: A Guest “GuestA” has a DoR (degree of relation, I dont want to write this term all the time) of x. Another Guest “GuestB” has a DoR of x+1. If a new Guest arrives, he might get a DoR of x+1, too. If raise/lower is chosen randomally, too, GuestB has a 1/4 chance to get a DoR of x. But then two Guests have the same DoR - so GuestB has then a 1/4 chance (1/16 totally) to get a lower DoR than GuestA. When a new Guest arrives, it is always possible, that another one becomes Heir, the safe contains strange information and so on.

If raise/lower is not chosen randomally at such points (mabye Keavan would see this problem then), it would be unfair, because there are players, who have the chance to get a lower DoR, and only because another one has a DoR, which is one lower, you wont have such a chance unless the other player gets a lower DoR? Thats not ok, I think.

This also fixes the fix mentioned in “Proposal: Small Fix To The Small Fix”. Ill calculate later, how big the possibility of such an action is. I do not expect it is big, but there will be a chance for it though…

Incident: Master Bedroom locked

Something unexpected has gotten into the workings of the pipe mail system. One of the intake pipes above the door to the master bedroom becomes jammed, and small brass rivets pop onto the carpet. With a creak, the wire guttering splits in two, one half blocking the only door in and out of the bedroom. The Master Bedroom cannot be entered or exited for 24 hours.

Meanwhile, in the empty kitchen, an industrial-sized tin of powdered egg rolls from a shelf, injuring nobody.

Idling

Could an admin idle me, please?

Not abandoning BlogNomic; I’ll continue to follow the dynasty. RL’s catching up with me a bit, though, so I don’t have as much time to go through the dynasty; and so far, the ruleset doesn’t give me much of a reason to do anything, and I can’t think of obvious ways to improve it either. Perhaps I’ll be back when I have more of an idea of which way the dynasty’s going.

Proposal: Small Fix To The Small Fix

Timed out 14 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Feb 2010 14:36:48 UTC

If the proposal “Small Fix” passes, add to the end of the rule “Bloodline” the following:

A guest may never have a degree of relation lower than 1.

This is to eliminate the rare possibility that two guests both having a degree of relation of 1 will make it possible for one of them to reach a degree of relation of 0 (that is, if Kevan randomly decides whether to lower or raise the degree of relation.

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Proposal: Small Fix

Reached quorum with 15 votes FOR. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 05 Feb 2010 21:32:01 UTC

Rewrite the rule “Bloodline” so that it reads:

Each Guest has a degree of relation to Lord Cartlesham, represented as a number and tracked privately by the Executor. The Guest with the lowest degree of relation is Lord Cartlesham’s next of kin.

If a Guest has no degree of relation defined, the Executor may privately assign a uniformly randomly-selected degree between 1 and 1000 to that Guest. If two Guests should ever have the same degree, the Executor should choose one of those Guests at random and raise or lower their degree by 1.

Proposal: The Berkshire Cartleshams

Reached quorum 15 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 05 Feb 2010 20:40:04 UTC

Enact a new subrule to Rule 2.5 (Bloodline), entitled “Surnames”:-

Each Guest has a Surname, which can either be “Cartlesham”, or a name taken from this version of a list of Wodehouse surnames on the BlogNomic wiki.

All Guests start with a surname of Cartlesham. If a Guest ever has a degree of relation above 1000 yet still has a surname of “Cartlesham”, the Executor shall change that Guest’s Surname to a random name given in the list mentioned previously.

In the Rule 2.14 (Late Arrivals), replace “set all their statistics in the GNDT” with:-

set all their statistics in the GNDT (except Surname)

If the proposal “Not From Round These Parts” passed, add to the bulleted list in Rule 2.14:-

  • They must choose and adopt a Surname other than “Cartlesham”, from the list given in the “Surnames” rule.

Using a “surname” GNDT field to make it clearer who’s still in the running for a lineage victory. (Was considering having a different surname for Guests with a degree of relation between 500 and 1000, but decided against it for now.)

Incident: Lights Out

Pressing what they mistakenly believe to be a switch for a reading lamp in the parlour, a guest inadvertently activates the room’s security system. The doors click shut, and the entire house is plunged into darkness.

(Guests cannot enter or leave the Parlour for 24 hours.)

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

I come as a late arrival.

I don’t have the time to update the GNDT right now; I’ll do it later.

Did Kevan ever fix that bug, by the way?

Proposal: Not From Round These Parts

Timed out 14 votes to 4. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 05 Feb 2010 17:41:29 UTC

In Rule 2.14, replace “Their Degree of Relation is set to a new value that is between their previous degree of relation and 1250.” with:-

Their Degree of Relation is set to a new value between 1001 and 2000.

Making it so that being killed definitely (rather than just “maybe”) takes you out of the immediate running for a lineage victory, which will let researchers safely eliminate guests from the bloodline, let the dead know where they stand, and make each murder more effective.

It’d still be entirely possible to win through a big enough massacre, or a bloodline-changing/victory-claiming Crisis that enough other guests supported, but I think death needs to be a bigger risk than “keep your old role or upgrade to a better one, then be randomly - but potentially not very - worse off in the lineage”.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Proposal: Repair is hard work

Can’t reach quorum with 16 votes against. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 04 Feb 2010 11:14:07 UTC

Create a Dynastic Rule titled “Personal Keys” with the following text:

Each Guest has a personal family key, which was given to them due to Cartlesham family tradition. These keys are named after them. A ‘matching key’ to something is defined as a key with the same name as that something.

Create a Dynastic Rule titled “The Fusebox” with the following text:

Lord Cartlesham treasured his family, and tried to engrave as much of it into his possessions as possible. His fusebox is no exception. The fusebox has a chain of switches in it, which are sealed by specialised locks. These switches are named after each Guest.
These switches can be either set to ‘ON’ or ‘OFF’. Their state is privately tracked by the Executor.

Whenever the lights go out, all the fusebox switches are set to ‘OFF’ and the Executor shall choose randomly (in whatever manner deemed suitable by him) four fusebox switches; The first three of these switches may be referred to as ‘vital’ switches, while the last one is a ‘dead’ switch.

If after the change of any of the switches’ state all the vital switches are set to ‘ON’ and the dead switch is set to ‘OFF’, the Lights come back On and the remainder of the current Dark List is ignored.

Put the following in the place of the Dark Action “Repair the fusebox” in Rule 2.6 Lights:

Switch a fusebox switch. If they are in the Basement, each Guest may, as a Dark Action, switch a switch they have the matching key to. They may switch it to ‘ON’, ‘OFF’ or ‘MANIPULATE’. If they switch it to ‘MANIPULATE’, it’s state is set to ‘OFF’ but the states of the fusebox switches with names which precede and follow the name of the switch in alphabetical order are set to their inverse (‘ON’ set to ‘OFF’, or ‘OFF’ set to ‘ON’).

Base idea was to make repair take more time, as right now it gets done easily before any risks, and it’ll be even faster...

The backstory might be a little forced, though…

The reason for the keys system is so that we can link other things to it (and maybe make giving keys away possible…)

Deja Vu. Again. For the version 0 of this proposal (finding parts around the mansion to repair the fusebox) and this version too…

Proposal: No Clues In The Dark

Reached quorum with 20 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 04 Feb 2010 11:12:30 UTC

In the subrule “Combination Lock” under the rule “The Safe”, replace

If the state of the Safe is Closed, as a weekly action, a Guest in the Lounge may inform the Executor that they wish to search the Lounge for clues for the Combination.

with

If the state of the Safe is Closed and the lights are on, as a weekly action, a Guest in the Lounge may inform the Executor that they wish to search the Lounge for clues for the Combination.

Incident: Lights Out

Idling picking at the wood of the mantlepiece with his straight-edged razor, the Gangster inadvertently shaves the insulation from a lighting cable. He crumples onto the hearth rug, stunned, as the lights fail.