Monday, October 04, 2010

Proposal: Is this a secure line?

Self-killed. —Brendan

Adminned at 05 Oct 2010 05:24:36 UTC

Create a new rule entitled ‘Communications’, containing the following:

As a weekly action, an Agent who has a Codename may send a message to another Agent who has a Codename by telephoning D-Ops with the subject line “ACTION: CODENAME sending a message to CODENAME” where the first “CODENAME” is the Codename of the Agent sending the message, and the second “CODENAME” is the intended recipient. If valid, the D-Ops should forward the message alone to the recipient Agent.

The D-Ops may forward the message, with the Codename of either the sender or recipient, to any other single Agent.

 

My first prop, feel free to rip it apart.

Comments

Brendan:

10-04-2010 17:10:08 UTC

imperial This sort of implies a possibly-malevolent D-Ops, which is interesting but seems unlikely.

Thane Q:

10-04-2010 17:14:41 UTC

Was thinking the opposite, that there is a chance D-Ops can forward it, but not often, but felt it would be more interesting if it were at D-Ops discretion, and could forward on every message if he so chose. Either way, with D-Ops forwarding almost everything, or with it being mostly secure, I think it’d be interesting.

Purplebeard:

10-04-2010 17:35:30 UTC

for I’d be in favour of a fixed chance that the message is intercepted by a random Agent.

Bucky:

10-04-2010 17:40:34 UTC

against Should fail if the Agents are in different Locations/Sectors.

Kevan:

10-04-2010 18:21:14 UTC

for Seems a bit of an easy way to confirm an ally’s codename, but I suppose there’s always the chance of a later proposal that reveals the contents or senders of past messages.

Possibly-malevolent D-Ops doesn’t seem very interesting, though - I’d prefer an explicit “5% chance of message being intercepted by random Agent, 5% chance of it being misdelivered, 5% chance of it being lost” mechanic. Some modifiers for locations might be good too.

Purplebeard:

10-04-2010 18:24:51 UTC

against In favour of my version, which is actually quite close to Kevan’s suggestion.

Blacky:

10-04-2010 18:31:48 UTC

against In favor of the new proposal

lilomar:

10-04-2010 19:03:10 UTC

against per Purplebeard

Thane Q:

10-04-2010 19:29:11 UTC

against CoV Going for Purplebeard’s fix.

Ienpw III:

10-04-2010 19:54:03 UTC

against

Brendan:

10-04-2010 19:56:06 UTC

against CoV.

Darknight:

10-04-2010 21:25:39 UTC

against