Story Post: Haul: The Scrivener (5 comments) Through an inadequately closed window, the group gathers 23 Florins and a fine s

Through an inadequately closed window, the group gathers 23 Florins and a fine silver Candlestick from a writing desk.

All Thieves adopted a Standard Plan for the job, save for JonathanDark who favoured Cash.

Proposal: The Pigeon Loft [Building Blocks]

Copy the Building Block “Virtual Actions” into the Building Blocks section of the ruleset.

In “The Plan”, replace “A Thief may change their plan at any time by privately messaging the City what they want their new plan to be” with:-

A Thief may change their Plan as a virtual action.

In “Attitudes”, replace “As a Weekly Action, a Thief may change their Attitude by privately communicating to the City their new Attitude.” with:-

A Thief may change their Attitude as a virtual action.

In “The Haul”, replace “If the Haul is empty” with:-

If the Haul is empty and no virtual actions are pending

In “Distribution”, replace “If a quorum of Thieves have posted equivalent Propositions on a Haul post” with:-

If a quorum of Thieves have posted equivalent Propositions on a Haul post and no virtual actions are pending

Seems like we may as well use the virtual actions boilerplate here, so that we’ve got clear outcomes for invalid requests, retractions and other outlier situations.

Story Post: Quorum is broken?

At https://blognomic.com/archive/the_spoils#comments Kevan explicitly put Quorum at 5. When Clucky unidled, did we all assume Quorum raised to 6, or did I miss something? Either way, is it legal to raise the quorum if it would be legal to do so if you had announced it?

Proposal: Lighter Pockets

Add the following to the table of Possessions in the rule of the same name, as the first and third entries respectively:

| Black Glove || 0 || Enables the Riffle plan
| Flintlock || 2 || Enables the Menace plan

Add the following to the list of Plans in the rule The Plan:

| Target || Prior to the posting of each Haul, you may privately specify a Possession to the City. If you have at least 2 Florins when the Burglary is run, lose 2 Florins and the City adds the Possession so specified to the Haul.
| Riffle || If you have at least one Black Glove, lose a Black Glove. After the Haul is posted in which this is your Plan, but before that Haul is Distributed, you may once move one Possession from the Inventory of anothr Thief to your own Inventory.
| Menace || If you have at least one Flintlock, lose a Flintlock. In this Haul, a Proposition is not valid if it would result in no Florins being distributed to you.

Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Proposal: Underground Economy

In the rule “The Thieves”, add a subrule rule named “General Fund” with the following text:

There is a publicly-tracked integer named “General Fund” that defaults to 20.

Whenever a Thief would gain Florins, the activity that generated that gain is known as a Circulation if is one of the following:
* A Haul Split
* Taking Florins from another Thief
* Destroying a Pouch
* Removing a Possession from that Thief’s Inventory

If a Thief would gain Florins from an activity that is not a Circulation, that number of Florins must first be subtracted from the General Fund. If the General Fund would become less than 0 from this subtraction, the subtraction is not performed and the Thief gains 0 Florins instead.

In the subrule “Distribution”, add the following after the text “some or all of the Thieves”:

, as well as the General Fund

In the same subrule, after the text “Move the contents of the Haul to the Thieves in the manner specified by this common Proposition;” add this text:

this is known as a Haul Split.

I wanted to see if there was interest in having economic coherence by having a common fund for the Thieves for other activites.

It’s true that this lessens the fight amongst Thieves by offering a place to put Florins so that it’s easier to make an even distribution per Haul, but that also means an increase in Thieves’ abilities to get more Florins outside of Hauls, so there’s a balance to be had. Adjusting the amount that goes to the General Fund affects these extra-curricular activities.

Call for Judgment: Admins do not have discretion

quorom reached. Passes 6-0—Clucky

Adminned at 30 Apr 2024 21:14:11 UTC

In “The Haul” replace:
* “Add DICE20 Florins to the Haul” with “Add 1 Florin to the Haul”
* “Make a blog post in the Story Post Votable Matter category announcing the contents of the Haul; this is known as a Haul post” with “Make a blog post in the Story Post Votable Matter category, announcing the contents of the Haul and what each Thief’s plan was; this is known as a Haul post”.

Uphold that Story Post: Haul: The Milliner was not validly created and has no effect as a Haul post. Uphold that the atomic action that would have created that post was not started and revert all of its steps.

When Kevan enacted Proposal: We skipped step 1 he skipped, as impossible, a step that would replace one bullet point in the Burglary action with two bullet points. The problem is, that’s not impossible - you just replace the one apple with two oranges - and while it would break the rule a little, and would be contrary to the implied original intent of the proposer, it is not the job of an enacting admin to apply judgement or discretion in either of those matters.

Because this proposal was mis-adminned, the haul in The Milliner is artificially inflated, which will clearly benefit whoever ends up on the best side of the chop in a way that will persist throughout the rest of a dynasty. Because the size of the Haul was improperly calculated, because a second Haul Post has not been created, and because the Haul post that was published is not “announcing the contents of the Haul” (which has a different value from that expressed), the Burglary atomic action has not been completed.

The game has not progressed so far that any way forward other than reverting and properly applying the rule makes sense. I’m fixing the mistake in the original proposal while I’m at it.

Story Post: Haul: The Milliner

Reverting the Haul due to the CfJ Admins do not have discretion by marking it as illegal.

Adminned at 30 Apr 2024 22:14:06 UTC

When its lock is broken open back at the garret, the takings chest of the hatmaker is found to contain 33 Florins and an Unappraised Gem.

Proposal: An Even More Notorious Proposal

In the rule ‘The Thieves’, replace “Each Thief has a number of Florins, and an inventory list of Possessions.” with

Each Thief has a number of Florins, an inventory list of Possessions, and a Notoriety Level.

In the rule ‘Possessions’, replace “At any time a Thief may remove a Possession from their own inventory to gain Florins equal to its Value.” with

At any time a Thief may take an action known as Selling, to remove a Possession from their own inventory to gain Florins equal to its Value.

Add a new rule after Containers named ‘Notoriety’ with the following text:

Every Thief has a Level of Notoriety, which defaults to -5. Every time a Thief Sells a Possession from their own inventory, they gain 1 Notoriety Level for every Florin they receive. If a Thief’s Notoriety is above 0, then they must roll DICE(50-NOTORIETY) every time they Sell a Possession. If the result is 1, then they are Caught and 50% of their Florins, rounded up, are distributed evenly amongst all other Thieves, with any remaining Florins lost.

I had a previous proposal but this one tidies it up much more nicely.

Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Proposal: Gambling

Reached quorum 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 01 May 2024 09:26:55 UTC

Enact a new rule with the title “Gambling”

If there is no current Gamble, as a daily action, a thief can publicly create a Gamble and enter it by spending one Gold Ring.

If there is a current Gamble, as a daily action, a thief not in the Gamble can enter the Gamble by publicly spending one Gold Ring and specifying privately to the City to either defect or cooperate. This closes the Gamble, allowing another to be created.

The first thief to enter the now closed Gamble can then specify privately or publicly whether to defect or cooperate.

Once both thieves have chosen to defect or cooperate, the City will publish the outcome: If both thieves cooperate, they each get 8 Florins. If only one thief defects, they get 11 Florins, and the other thief gets 3 florins. If both thieves defect, they both get 5 Florins.

Thieves in Gambles are tracked Publicly, but their choices are not.

Inspired by prisoner dilemmas! I do think that’s a fun idea, but have to put those dilemma’s into the classic version of them.

Proposal: Safekeeping

Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 01 May 2024 09:24:01 UTC

Rename the Rule “Containers” to “Pouches”.

Add a new rule after “Pouches” named “Chests” with the text

Each Thief has a chest, which can contain 2 Possessions. As a daily action, a thief may Take Inventory.

Taking inventory is one of

- privately viewing and publicly taking one possession out of their chest

- privately viewing the contents of their chest

- privately viewing and publicly putting one possession into their chest.

Amend the effect of Lockpick to be “A thief may use a lockpick to make Taking Inventory entirely private and also able to operate on others’ chests.”

Enable stealing from others a bit. I think some direct pickpocketing is in order as well, to incentivise the use of chests.

Proposal: A Notorious Proposal

Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 01 May 2024 09:22:51 UTC

In the rule ‘The Thieves’, replace “Each Thief has a number of Florins, and an inventory list of Possessions.” with

Each Thief has a number of Florins, an inventory list of Possessions, and a Notoriety Level.

In the rule ‘Possessions’, replace “At any time a Thief may remove a Possession from their own inventory to gain Florins equal to its Value.” with

At any time a Thief may take an action known as Selling, to remove a Possession from their own inventory to gain Florins equal to its Value.

Add a new rule after Containers named ‘Notoriety’ with the following text:

Every Thief has a Level of Notoriety, which defaults to -5. Every time a Thief Sells a Possession from their own inventory, they gain 1 Level of Notoriety. If a Thief’s Notoriety is above 0, then they must roll DICE(100-NOTORIETY) every time they Sell a Possession. If the number is 1, then they are Caught and must pay 50%, rounding up, of their current florins to the City.


I thought it would make sense that constantly selling stolen goods would get the police interested.

Proposal: Brand New Bag

Reached quorum 8 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan. JonathanDark had illegally replaced the “this page” phrasing with the full URL of the category page when enacting Papoose, in an attempt to link to the category page; consider this corrected and then overwritten.

Adminned at 01 May 2024 09:22:17 UTC

In the rule “Containers”, replace “comprised of a combination of 5 symbols (from those found on this page)” with:-

of “X Pouch” (where X is a Pouch Style, or two different Pouch Styles separated by a space)

Add a new paragraph to that rule:-

The Pouch Styles are: Amber, Auburn, Battered, Beige, Black, Brown, Buttoned, Cerise, Cloth, Concealed, Crimson, Dirty, Drab, Drawstring, Dusty, Embroidered, Fawn, Frayed, Grey, Hidden, Inkstained, Jute, Khaki, Leather, Mahogany, New, Ochre, Old, Patchwork, Quilted, Ragged, Red, Rough, Scarlet, Scuffed, Sequined, Shabby, Sheepskin, Slim, Small, Tan, Tattered, Threadbare, Torn, Ugly, Umber, Vermilion, Weathered, Worn and Yellow.

If any Pouches exist, assign each of them a different, random single-Style name.

Maybe we could give pouches names like “Brown Pouch” and “Ragged Old Pouch”, rather than “✨💣🤖🛑🧠” and “☣️🛑✨💣👻”

Proposal: Giving the Nod

Reached quorum 8 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 01 May 2024 09:09:46 UTC

To the first paragraph of “Distribution”, add:-

Where a Thief says in a comment on a Haul post that they “agree” with another Thief, and offers no distribution in the same comment, this is taken as a suggested distribution that matches the Proposition of the named Thief for that Haul, at the time of the comment (if such a Proposition exists).

A clear shortcut for endorsing another Thief’s proposition, to make agreed duplicates more distinct from subtle counter-suggestions.

Proposal: No Honour Among Thieves

Reached quorum 6 votes to 1 including an Imperial DEF. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 01 May 2024 09:07:42 UTC

Add a new rule called “Attitudes” with the following text:

Each Thief has an Attitude, privately tracked by the City and defaulting to “One of Us”. An Attitude has a Description that contains the rules the apply to each Thief that has that Attitude. As a Weekly Action, a Thief may change their Attitude by privately communicating to the City their new Attitude.

In the Description, an Attitude may have an Action, which is performed by the City during the Distributing atomic action.

The valid Attitudes are listed in the table below:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Attitude || Description
|-
| One of Us || You cannot achieve victory. Action: This Thief gains 2 Florins.
|-
| Best Mates || Action: This Thief gains 1 Florin for each Thief that does not also have this Attitude.
|-
| Solo Act || Action: Secretly randomly choose another Thief and secretly roll DICE4 - 1, then subtract the result from that Thief's Florins, to a minimum of 0, and add the amount actually subtracted to this Thief's Florins.
|}

In the rule “The Haul”, add the following bullet point just before the last bullet point in the atomic action of Distributing:

* Perform the Action of the Attitude of each Thief, if there are any to perform, doing so by secretly randomly choosing the order of Thieves in which to process each Thief’s Attitude. Any gains or losses are in addition to the previous steps of this instance of this atomic action.

How did no one use this Proposal title yet?

Similar to Clucky’s idea of Plans, except this goes in effect during Distribution, rather than during Burglary. The varied gains in Florins will hopefully encourage Thieves to consider collaborating, but as Thieves they can never really tell who is trustworthy.

I recognize that this is adding Florins out of nowhere in some cases, so it messes with the Florin economy a bit. I’m open to changes along those lines if someone has a more clever way to avoid that.

Story Post: Haul: The Clockmaker

Clucky, 4st, JonathanDark, Lendunistus, NadNavillus, DesertFrog and Juniper have agreed on a split.

Adminned at 30 Apr 2024 08:08:15 UTC

A simple smash and grab down at the clockmaker’s on Tanner Street brings in 18 Florins and a Lockpick.

Proposal: No more improvised burglaries

Timed out 2 votes to 3 with an unresolved Imperial DEF. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 01 May 2024 07:49:23 UTC

Add a new rule entitled “The Scheme”, with the following text:

Each Thief has a Role which is publicly tracked and defaults to none. The possible Roles are:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Role !! Effect
|-
| Leader || -
|-
| Picking locks || -
|-
| Lookout || -
|-
| Carrying the Haul || -
|-
|}

In “The Haul”, add the following as the second-to-last step of Burglary:

Create the new Scheme by selecting the Leadership Role and two other random distinct Roles and adding them to the Scheme

In “Distribution”, add the following as the second-to-last step of the Distribution atomic action:

Set the Role of each Thief mentioned in this common Proposition in the manner specified in; set the Roles of the Thieves who are not mentioned to none;


Throughout the rule “The Haul” and its subrules but excluding the description of the Distribution action, replace all instances of “the contents of the Haul” with

the contents of the Haul and the Roles of the Scheme

In “Distribution”, replace “Such responses must unambiguously identify where every element of the Haul’s contents would go.” with

Such responses must unambiguously identify where every element of the Haul’s contents would go and to whom each of the Scheme’s Roles should be assigned.

 

Effects are intentionally left blank for now, but things I had in mind include interaction with Possessions (e.g. lockpick) and perhaps a possibility to implement the defection system outside the Haul

Sunday, April 28, 2024

Proposal: Stylish Play

Timed out 4-4 (4-3 with 1 DEF and City voting AGAINST). Failed by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 30 Apr 2024 17:32:40 UTC

In the Core rule “Dynasties” add a subrule named “Player Style” with the following text:

There is a gamestate variable named “Player Style” which defaults to empty and is automatically set to empty immediately after the end of an Interregnum. Player Style is only publicly tracked when it is not empty; otherwise it is implicitly privately tracked by the City. At any time when BlogNomic is not on Hiatus, Player Style may be set through the successful enactment of a Proposal.

When not empty, the contents of Player Style are nonbinding advisory statements on how Thieves expect each other to play the current dynasty. Thieves are encouraged to set the Player Style to statements that indicate the level of competitiveness, strictness of rule interpretation, and any other descriptive qualities that might affect how one Thief interprets the intentions of another Thief’s actions.

Thieves are encouraged to follow the general theme of the statements conatined in Player Style and to have public discussions when they feel that other Thieves are not meeting the expectations of those statements.

 

First attempt at a way to help prompt players to communicate their intentions.

Proposal: We skipped step 1

Reached quorum 8 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan, skipping the impossible instruction to replace “Add DICE20 Florins to the Haul” with two different strings.

Adminned at 30 Apr 2024 08:01:31 UTC

Add a new rule called “The Plan”

Each Thief has a Plan, which is privately tracked by the City and defaults to Standard. A Thief may change their plan at any time by privately messaging the City what they want their new plan to be

Each Plan has a name, which is flavor text used to reference and track the plan, and an effect. The possible plans are tracked in the table below


{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Name || Effect
|-
| Standard || The city adds 1DICE3 Florins to the haul
|-
| Pocket || You gain 1 Florin
|-
| Cash || If you have at least 2 Florins when the Burglary is run, lose 2 Florins and the city adds 2DICE5 Florins to the haul
|-
| Stuff || If you have at least 3 Florins when the Burglary is run, lose 3 Florins and the city adds an additional Possession to the haul
|}

In “The Haul” replace “Add DICE20 Florins to the Haul” with “Add 1 Florin to the Haul” and “Make a blog post in the Story Post Votable Matter category announcing the contents of the Haul and what each Theif’s plan was; this is known as a Haul post”.

Then add the step “Apply the Effect of each Thief’s plan (with the ‘you’ referring to the Thief whose plan it is)” as the first step of the Burglary and the step “Reset each Thief’s plan to Standard” as the final step of the Burglary.

Do you focus on yourself, get 1 for sure, help out the group and on average give +2 that might or might not come back to you, or go all out and actually put some skin in the game even though you still might be cut out in the end?

Proposal: No Speed Rounds

Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 1 vote to 7 by Kevan.

Adminned at 30 Apr 2024 07:55:49 UTC

If there is no rule called “The Haul” this proposal has no effect

In “The Haul” replace “the City may perform the following atomic action, known as Burglary:-” with “and it has been at least 44 hours since this action was last performed, the City may perform the following atomic action, known as Burglary:-”

Currently a cabal could conceivably get Kevan to run a haul, all vote to give themselves the loot, and then Kevan runs another haul right away. Feel like ensuring a pace of about one haul every other day is better (44 hours is there to allow for time drift)

Proposal: Yet-To-Be-Prisoner’s Dilemma

Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 1 vote to 7 with an Imperial DEF, by Kevan.

Adminned at 30 Apr 2024 07:55:04 UTC

Add the following to the end of “The Haul”:

A Haul post is Open if its status is not enacted.

Change “If the Haul is empty” to “If no Open Haul post exists”.

Create a subrule of “The Haul” named “Defectors” with the following body:

If there is an Open Haul post, a Thief may Defect at any time by sending a private message to the City (via Discord or the blog) announcing their intent to do so.

Thieves who have Defected may be referred to as Defectors.

Add the following step to the beginning of the Distribution action:

* If only one Thief has Defected since the creation of this Haul post, move the contents of the Haul to them and skip the next step;

Change the second step of that action to the following:

* Move the contents of the Haul to the Thieves in the manner specified by this common Proposition. If any elements would go to a Defector, instead keep them in the Haul;

Proposal: Unlimied

Exceeded quorum, 7-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 29 Apr 2024 22:38:41 UTC

In the Appendix rule Spelling and Formatting, change “the Ruleset and their own Pending Votable Matters” to “the Ruleset, the Building Blocks page, and their own Pending Votable Matters”.

Proposal: Papoose

Reached quorum, 6-2. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 29 Apr 2024 22:28:01 UTC

Add the following as a subrule of Possessions, called Containers:

Each Thief may have a number of Pouches.

A Pouch is a Possession that is used to contain Florins. Each individual Pouch is unique, and must have a name comprised of a combination of 5 symbols (from those found on this page) that has not been used as the name of another Pouch in this dynasty. The value of a Pouch is equal to the number of Florins used to create it and must be greater than 0; the value of each individual Pouch is privately tracked by the City. All Pouches have no effect.

As a daily action, a Thief may Sort their Pouches. Sorting Pouches is an atomic action with the following steps:
* Destroy all of their existing Pouches by removing them from their inventory, and gaining Florins equal to their value;
* Spend any number (greater than zero) of Florins, and create a new Pouch in their inventory with a valid name and a valid Value equal to the number of number of Florins so spent;
* Send a personal message to the City detailing the Pouches destroyed and created, with the new values of the latter.

Proposal: The Burlap Sack

Exceeded quorum, 6-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 29 Apr 2024 05:40:09 UTC

Enact a new rule, “The Haul”:-

The Haul contains a list of Possessions and a number of Florins.

If the Haul is empty, the City may perform the following atomic action, known as Burglary:-

  • Add DICE20 Florins to the Haul
  • Select a random type of Possession and add one instance of it to the Haul
  • Make a blog post in the Story Post Votable Matter category announcing the contents of the Haul; this is known as a Haul post

Enact a subrule to “The Haul” called “Distribution”:-

A Thief may respond to a Haul post with a comment that includes a single suggested distribution of the contents of the Haul among one, some or all of the Thieves. Such responses must unambiguously identify where every element of the Haul’s contents would go. The most recent such response made by a Thief on a Haul post is known as their Proposition for that Haul.

If a quorum of Thieves have posted equivalent Propositions on a Haul post, the City may perform the atomic action of Distributing it:-
* Move the contents of the Haul to the Thieves in the manner specified by this common Proposition;
* Change the status of the Haul post to enacted.

Core game loop: a pile of loot is generated and the group have to agree (by at least a majority) on how to split it between them.

Loosely inspired by Tiefe Taschen and Junta but with (at least for now) a simpler and more blog-friendly resolution process of just waiting for any suggestion to hit quorum.

Proposal: Set a Thief

Exceeded quorum, 7-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 29 Apr 2024 05:34:09 UTC

Enact a new rule, “The Thieves”:-

Each Thief has a number of Florins, and an inventory list of Possessions. These are publicly tracked.

Enact a new rule, “Possessions”:-

The following types of Possession exist, each with a Value and some having corresponding Effects:-

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Possession !! Value !! Effect
|-
| Lockpick || 1 || -
|-
| Candlestick || 3 || -
|-
| Gold Ring || 7 || -
|-
| Unappraised Gem || DICE10 || -
|}

At any time a Thief may remove a Possession from their own inventory to gain Florins equal to its Value.

Ascension Address: The Spoils

Cheap tallow candles in a high garret room. A few handfuls of small gold and silver coins are scattered across the wooden table, meagre spoils from a long night’s work through the city’s winding streets and unsecured doors. With lowered but insistent voices, a group are pushing the coins around the table, occasionally gesturing to marks and crosses on a map of the city, and dividing up their takings.

The group look up as the door bangs open, one of them instinctively snatching up and folding away the map, but it is only the last of their number returning.

The newcomer strides up to the table and throws a few more coins down, before holding a dark gemstone up against the candlelight. When the map holder gestures for this to also be added to the table, the new arrival holds out his other arm, the sleeve of which is ragged and bloody with the marks of a guard dog’s teeth. As the group tilt their heads and glance at each other, the holder of the stone closes his fist around it.

The term “Seeker” becomes “Thief” and “Observer” becomes “City”. The Public Tracking page becomes “The Garret”. The Building Block “Mantle Limiations” is activated.

My declared Imperial Style is Gardener/Protective/Powerhouse/Scam-Neutral/Guarded/Methodical.

Friday, April 26, 2024

The Darkroom

Post-dynastic washup thread.

Declaration of Victory: Photo Finish

Open for 12 hours with more than 2/3 of votes in favour including the Observer. Enacted 5-0 by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Apr 2024 21:43:56 UTC

With 4 Awards I have achieved victory. My Private Criteria and their salts were, in chronological order:

“Satisfies the text of my 1st secret key. 512”, “Satisfies the text of my 2nd secret key. 104”, “Satisfies the text of my 3rd secret key. 826”, “Satisfies the text of my 4th secret key. 912”, “Satisfies the text of my 5th secret key. 783”, “Satisfies the text of my 2nd secret key. 953”, “Satisfies the text of my 5th secret key. 173”, “Satisfies the text of my 54th secret key. 511”, “Satisfies the text of my 29th secret key. 451”, “Satisfies the text of my 386th secret key. 613”, “Satisfies the text of my 853rd secret key. 271”, “Satisfies the text of my 3716th secret key. 523”, “Satisfies the text of my 3727th secret key. 124”, “Satisfies the text of my 1731st secret key. 436”, “Satisfies the text of my 7510th secret key. 415”, “Satisfies the text of my 9264th secret key. 774”, “Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 523”, “Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 124”, “Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 436”, “Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 415”, “Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 774”, “Doesn’t contain Bank tube station. 126”, “Doesn’t contain Euston tube station. 361”, “Doesn’t contain Morden tube station. 751”, “Doesn’t contain Chalk Farm tube station. 925”, “Doesn’t contain Balham tube station. 651”, “Contains a liftable manmade object. bkf”, “Neither the sky nor the sea is visible. wh6”, “Contains a painted surface (but not blue). dha”, “Contains something brown and/or striped. i8y”, “Camera is clearly angled downwards. kxj”, “Contains a tree, twig or playing card. g9q”, “Contains glass or clear plastic. ba8”, “Contains a crisp shadow or clear reflection. ba9”, “Contains an object at least 50m away. 6nj”, “Player name is neither horizontal nor red. 86h”

Award: Conceptual Balance

I claim the Conceptual Balance award: at this point on 22 April I had a Criteria at 4/4, from snaps 29 through 36.

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Guess: Kevan: Water

I think I will make an extraordinarily unlikely but somewhat topical guess:

Kevan is one of your criteria:

snap contains water?

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Proposal: Guessing Game 2.0

Timed out 2 votes to 2. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 28 Apr 2024 13:00:36 UTC

In the rule “Guesses” replace the text “Make a story post to the blog clearly declaring the name of the Targeted Seeker, and what the guesser thinks one of their Private Criteria are” with this text:

Make a story post to the blog containing each the following items: the name of the Targeted Seeker, text that uniquely identifies a single existing Authentic Shot posted within the last 48 hours where the Targeted Seeker has not yet responded to that post and the guesser is not the author of that post, and a number between 1 and 4 inclusive that the guesser thinks is the number of Private Criteria that the named Authentic Shot will satisfy for the Targeted Seeker.

In the same rule, replace the steps for the atomic action Resolving the Guess with the following steps:

* If the number mentioned in the guess is the same as the number of Private Criteria that is satisfied for the Targeted Seeker for that Authentic Shot, respond to the post with a for, reduce their own Score by the Exposure of each of the Private Criteria that is satisfied by that Authentic Shot, and increase the score of the Guesser by the same amount, and then remove each of that Private Criteria from the Target’s private criteria list (resetting its satisfying and unsatisfying counts to zero in the process)
* If the guess is not the same as the number of Private Criteria that is satisfied for the Targeted Seeker for that Authentic Shot, respond to the post with a against

Hopefully this will address the comments from the previous iteration of the Guessing Game proposal. Please do look for holes in this. Suggestions are welcome to word this more concisely if possible. That’s one thing I often struggle with.

Proposal: Conjunction Junction

Timed out 3 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Apr 2024 09:20:28 UTC

In Criteria, replace “Private criteria may only refer to and be verified by the contents of the shot. Private criteria may not refer to things such as the date, other criteria, the contents of other documents or the thoughts, opinions or feelings of any Seeker.” with:

Private criteria may only refer to and be verified by the contents of the shot. Private criteria may not refer to things such as the date, other criteria, the contents of other documents or the thoughts, opinions or feelings of any Seeker. Private criteria may not use the conjunctions “and”, “or”, “and/or”, “nor” to combine multiple shot conditions.

This proposal disallows concatenated criteria.  For example: “Snap contains something black or stripped”.  Criteria with more than one condition make “guessing” almost impossible. This also outlaws absurdly long criteria with many conditions.