Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Proposal: Dead men tell no tales

Reached quorum, 10-1. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 16 Oct 2007 15:18:03 UTC

If the Proposal: Werewolf fails, this proposal does nothing.

Add a rule called “Dead men tell no tales”

A Dead Villager may not reveal any information that he learned, made up, or other wise acquired about another villager, or any relevant information about himself that was not revealed before he became dead. This includes, but is not limited to, whether or not he or another villager was or is a werewolf; what another villager may have told him through private conversation; or even logical deduction about the roles of the other players based on the circumstances of the game.

Comments

Chivalrybean:

10-16-2007 04:55:46 UTC

for

Kevan:

10-16-2007 07:57:11 UTC

for Unenforceable, but worth stating.

aaronwinborn:

10-16-2007 13:26:16 UTC

for

aaronwinborn:

10-16-2007 13:27:57 UTC

might be nice to have some way that dead folks can participate though. maybe a dead peanut gallery. we can cross that bridge later…

spikebrennan:

10-16-2007 13:43:29 UTC

for Obviously, if there are Dead Villagers who intend to continue to participate, they must be undead.  Vampires, probably.  I will restrain myself from using the “Z” word because of the negative history that it may bring up.

Hix:

10-16-2007 14:56:19 UTC

against Ridiculously unenforcible.  About as effective as adding a rule that says “Any real-life human being who controls a blognomic account for an active Villager must eat 3 square meals every day.”

Kevan:

10-16-2007 15:57:27 UTC

Well, it would have the effect of making “well done for killing me guys, I was a werewolf, and Josh is too, check out our voting collusion” or “damn, they got me, I guess you can all have the research papers I’d been hiding” blog entries unambiguously illegal, and it would mean that anyone who rose to victory through shadily-obtained information would at least have to lie about it when asked (and feel guilty about cheating a win).

These games are a lot more interesting when character death stops you from being able to discuss the game in-character - I’ve played one where I thought this was happening, and it was very striking how much it encouraged me to find someone to confide in, when I thought all my clever theories and deductions were about to die with me.

Zaratustra:

10-16-2007 16:14:57 UTC

for I don’t really keep in touch with most of you guys, so yeah.

Shadowclaw:

10-16-2007 16:31:31 UTC

for

Rodney:

10-16-2007 16:43:36 UTC

imperial

Rodney:

10-16-2007 17:31:55 UTC

for COV.

This is unenforcable offline too. There’s no law of physics that prevents a dead face-to-face Mafia player from blurting out: “Screw this game, Bob is the last Mafia”, and ruining it for everyone. It’s also unenforcable in non-nomic online games, so why need it be enforcable here?

In fact, our setup makes it even less likely for dead-player-game-screwage. Werewolves would not necessarily know the other ones, and Villagers are very unlikely to have any information they haven’t shared.

For that matter, we already have an unenforcable rule: Rule 1.2. A player broke it once, and we banned him. I’m not suggesting a clause like “Any player who breaks this rule is banned forever and ever, amen”, but if someone deliberately ruins the game for everyone else, would anyone want to play with him next Dynasty?

Brendan:

10-16-2007 17:57:33 UTC

for

Bucky:

10-16-2007 21:39:12 UTC

for