For Spikebrennan: Who do you think was most likely to have killed you?

I mean: I ask Spikebrennan “Who do you think was most likely to have killed you?”

I ask Bucky “Who, if anyone, did you conclude was behind the Zahndwolf emails?”

I ask Amnistar “Who, if anyone, do you believe is a werewolf?”

I ask Bucky “If you could lynch anyone right now, who would it be?”

I ask Kevan “Are there more than two Werewolves left alive?”

(I don’t think we’ll get an answer, but it doesn’t cost anything to try.)

Yeah, an answer would be unlikely there.

Oracular, Rodlen:  Your question has to appear in the comment containing your most recent vote.

On a completely unrelated note, I present the following table for everyone’s amusement:

Do you still trust me? (1 yes, 0 no)
As a ghost, have you witnessed aaronwinborn transforming into a werewolf? (2 yes, 0 no)
Do you think that, at the time of your death, there were more than 2 werewolves? (4 yes, 0 no)
Can I have one of your silver bullets? (8 yes, 0 no)
Did you ever have a hairy back? (16 yes, 0 no)
Is the Gunsmith _really_ the only one? (64 yes, 32 no there was one other, 0 no there were at least two others)

I ask spikebrennan “What is your favorite integer between 0 and 95 (inclusive)?”

Well then…I ask Spikebrennan “Who do you think was most likely to have killed you?”  Just to make my question work.

Just a clarification—I have to wait for this town meeting proposal to pass before I can answer any questions, and at that point I can answer exactly one question from each person who asked one, right?

Bucky: do you think the phantom e-mailer set ya up for a hanging?

I ask Bucky “During your e-mail scan, who seemed the most suspicious?”

I ask spikebrennan “Is there any living villager that you trust to be innocent?”

I ask Amnistar “Who do you think is a werewolf?”

Ok, well just in case the answer is different from the answer to Tesla’s question:  I ask Bucky “Who, if anyone, did you conclude was behind the Zahndwolf emails?”

It seems out of character for me to tell players secret werewolf information (if the Mayor knew and wanted to tell you, he’d have done so while he was alive), so you should change that question, Brendan.

Spikebrennan; you have to wait for an admin to create a “Seance Results” post as well, but yes, it’ll list one question per person, and you answer the ones directed at you.

I ask spikebrennan “Do you think Hix’s questioning mechanism is kind of cheap?”

Uh, I’ve just noticed something, guys.  Seances are defined as Town Meetings that are called during a Nighttime period.  Although we’ve established that it’s legal to call a proposal a “Town Meeting” whenever you post it, they only count as Town Meetings if called during the Daytime.  How did we miss that?

We can debate the semantics of it (eg does “During any Nighttime period…  any living Villager may make a Seance proposal by posting a Town Meeting” qualify as permission to call TMs at night?), but I don’t want any Werewolves crying illegal if we get some results here and lynch them.

I did notice that, but I’m pretty sure since the rule categorically states that Seance Town Meetings can be called at night that they can.

Well, it doesn’t, though.  If it said that outright, I’d be fine with a later rule overriding an earlier one.  What it says is that you can take action X by way of taking action Y.  Does that rest on action Y’s legality or does it make Y legal by fiat?  Neither interpretation is 100% clear.

You know… there’s actually nothing in the Life in Zahndorf rule that says that Town Meetings can’t be held at night.  It just says that they can be held during the daytime.  And the Seance rule says that seances can be held at night.  I don’t see a problem here.

Sorry, I forgot you weren’t around when we debated this the first time.  My argument rests on the fact that, as Kevan put it there, “Rule 1.1 specifically tells us that only things which are permitted are permitted.”

I would imagine that this specific rule says it has to be at night, therefore overrides the general rule that says only during the day.

But doesn’t the seance rule permit seances at night? Just because town meetings aren’t explicitly permitted during the nighttime in the first rule doesn’t mean that they can’t be in the seance rule.

Isn’t there a “specific overrides general” clause in the ruleset?

I think there used to be one, Elias, but I’m maybe remembering another Nomic.

I’m with Brendan on this, though - to hold a Seance you need to “post a Town Meeting”, and to create an actual Town Meeting (rather than merely a Proposal that looks like one) you have to do that during Daytime.

I’ll hold off on vetoing for now in case I’ve missed a good argument; I wouldn’t begrudge a fake daytime Seance if somebody wanted to draw the curtains and post one right now, though.

Huh?

Saying that nighttime seances are illegal is based on some kind of implied rule that doesn’t actually exist, but the ban on posting seances during the day is very clear.  Why are you so much less concerned with breaking the rule which actually exists rather than the rule which doesn’t?

There’s nothing implied about it.  “The Ruleset and Gamestate can only be altered in manners specified by the Ruleset” is right there in Rule 1.1.  The second paragraph.  Between “enacted” and “Admins.”

Regardless, I thought of a better solution than debating it here—I’ve posted a clarification proposal that would retroactively make this Seance legal.

as per “The Mayor may Veto any Town Meeting which was called during the Nighttime.”, because this is spiralling slowly out of control.

The Seance rule says that Seances must be made at night, and that they have to be Town Meetings which must be made in the day. Therefore Seances cannot be made at any time, under the current ruleset.