Friday, January 30, 2015

Proposal: Mob Justice

Timed out and failed, 4-5. Josh

Adminned at 01 Feb 2015 08:38:47 UTC

Add the following to the list of subroutines in the ruleset:

ARLK - Threshold: 10 OI. All effects of this subroutine need to be Countersigned. The Subject of this subroutine is given the Disabled Condition. If its Subject is already Injured, their Condition is Increased. If its subject is already Injured, this subroutine has no effect.
CTSN - Threshold: 4 OI. Carry out any effects of the Subject Subroutine that required being Countersigned. The CTSN subroutine may only be carried out by a Crewmember with a Command Role.
FRGE - Threshold: 13 OI. Carry out any effects of the Subject Subroutine that required being Countersigned. The FRGE subroutine may be carried out by any Crewmember.

Add the following to the rule “Subroutines”, after the words “and signed by the Crewmember who sent the message.”:

Some subroutines require Countersigning by a Command Role. Any subroutine effect specifying that it needs to be Countersigned does not come into effect until it has been Countersigned. The syntax for a request for the CTSN subroutine varies from the above. CTSN alone has a syntax as follows: “EXECUTE SUBROUTINE CTSN YYYY ZZZZ”, where YYYY is the name of another subroutine and ZZZZ is the name of a Crewmember. If the named subroutine has been carried out signed by the named Crewmember in the preceding week, then that that subroutine is the subject subroutine.

posted by Josh at 30 Jan 2015 08:23:00 UTC Comments (21)

Comments

Bucky:

30-01-2015 15:00:00 UTC

against

2-man lynch squad?

Darknight: he/him

30-01-2015 15:56:08 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

30-01-2015 16:00:23 UTC

“Lynch squad” is a bit strong. A determined two-person team could move two people to injured a week, and would expose themselves through the subroutine list by doing so.

Kevan: he/him

30-01-2015 16:07:34 UTC

imperial

Sphinx:

30-01-2015 17:29:48 UTC

I don’t quite understand the effects of the first subroutine. If the subject is already injured, what happens?

Sphinx:

30-01-2015 17:38:08 UTC

Also I’m not sure if increasing a Condition is actually defined anywhere.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-01-2015 18:19:50 UTC

Yeah, there’s typo there, the first Injured should be Disabled. Not sure whether that would count as a typo for rule 1.1 but in any case, I’ll propose a fix if this ever gets any FOR votes.

Kevan: he/him

30-01-2015 18:22:23 UTC

Sphinx is right, though, Conditions can’t be increased or decreased since they were separated from Emotions.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-01-2015 18:25:31 UTC

Yup.

Since none of these have an effect due to the OI not meeting their thresholds, though, there’s plenty of time to fix.

Brendan: he/him

30-01-2015 18:45:41 UTC

for We’re running a game of Werewolf and nobody has been murdered all week. More death.

Bucky:

30-01-2015 19:33:53 UTC

I stabbed Skju, does that count?

Brendan: he/him

30-01-2015 20:31:08 UTC

I just realized that you weren’t kidding. Well done. (And a little weird that you haven’t announced what you stabbed them with.)

RaichuKFM: she/her

30-01-2015 23:36:58 UTC

against I feel it would be prudent to limit threats to my own safety, no?

Sphinx:

31-01-2015 04:33:00 UTC

imperial
The FRGE subroutine should have the same changed syntax as CTSN shouldn’t it? I like the mechanics themselves, but the errors might be easier to fix by a reproposal instead of fixing them afterwards?

Sylphrena:

31-01-2015 07:14:24 UTC

And I’m not sure how you could tell who’s in the lynch squad (without a L0GS subroutine).

Sylphrena:

31-01-2015 14:56:51 UTC

for

Sylphrena:

31-01-2015 15:03:11 UTC

(mostly because I like the Countersigning mechanic, and believe that the other problems with the rule can be changed between now and the time we get to 10 OI).

Skju:

31-01-2015 16:08:01 UTC

against Disablement is permanent.

Kevan: he/him

31-01-2015 19:20:33 UTC

Since this would arguably require the Computer “to reveal or change information that it is tracking privately”, I should probably vote in favour, for clarity’s sake.

for

Bucky:

01-02-2015 03:43:10 UTC

This proposal is broken in a dangerous way, and the fix is also broken and self-killed.  I don’t see why people are voting FOR.

Sylphrena:

01-02-2015 06:49:25 UTC

Actually, I voted FOR because I like the Countersign mechanic. Since Restoration of Health also introduces the Countersign mechanic, CoV.  against