Friday, February 03, 2017

Call for Judgment: Accident & Emergency

Reached quorum 4 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 03 Feb 2017 13:40:42 UTC

Remove “A Villager exhibiting Death may not take actions defined by dynastic rules, except those in the rules “Spectral Actions” and “The Doctor’s Rounds”.” from “Symptoms”, and remove the first sentence of “Spectral Actions”.

Add a subrule to “Symptoms” called “Death”:-

A Villager who is exhibiting the symptom of Death is considered to be Dead.

A Dead Villager who is not the Doctor may not take actions defined by dynastic rules, except those in the rule “Spectral Actions”.

If the Doctor is Dead, he may not take actions defined in the rule “Locations”, nor take any action which would alter his own inventory of Remedies.

Add a subrule to “The Doctor’s Rounds”, titled “Weekend Surgery”:-

If it is the 4th or 5th of February and no Rounds were performed on the 3rd of February, the Doctor may perform his Rounds as if it were a Friday. The Doctor may repeal this rule at any time.

The Doctor’s responses to Misery and Cough (and their immediate effects) shall be retroactively considered to have been legal actions, taken at the time the comments were made.

If the Doctor does not have the Symptom of Death, he gains it.

Matt makes a good point, the Doctor still needs to be able to perform some actions while dead. Pushing this through as a CfJ so that we can fix it before processing the next Rounds, which we can delay until the weekend if needed.

posted by Kevan at 03 Feb 2017 09:48:00 UTC Comments (8)

Comments

Viv:

03-02-2017 10:00:12 UTC

for

Madrid:

03-02-2017 10:04:56 UTC

“If the Doctor is Dead, he may not take actions defined in the rule “Locations”, nor take any action which would alter his own inventory of Remedies.” could potentially be vulnerable to Polterheist blackmail in the form of “If you do an action which isn’t what I tell you to, I will alter your inventory”.

Madrid:

03-02-2017 10:12:31 UTC

The magic word here is “would”. I’d change “nor take any action which would alter his own inventory of Remedies.” to “nor employ any rule-described mechanic that allows him to alter his inventory”

(Puppeteering the Doctor through Polterheist blackmail would’ve been super fun lol but I suck ass at weaponizing loopholes into actual wins, I hope I do better next dynasty)

Kevan: he/him

03-02-2017 10:43:46 UTC

I think the blackmailer’s decision is enough of a gap to turn it into a “might”. When I take an action, it’s not a certainty that the blackmailer will alter my inventory (they might forget, or be bluffing, or get hit by a bus), so I don’t think it’s a “would”.

quirck: he/him

03-02-2017 10:59:47 UTC

for

Madrid:

03-02-2017 11:04:33 UTC

Well yes, definitely, but then there is no certainty either that the performed action is legal or not - there wouldn’t be sufficient proof.

Sufficient proof would be needed, otherwise it would be reasonable to believe that a DoV for example can be declared based on “A really good reason which I’m not telling you”. You wouldn’t know if the argument would justify the DoV or not, so how could you enact the DoV based on that?

Similarly, how could you enact an action without knowing if it would be legal or not, because the blackmail COULD happen. It’s precisely that “might” gap that would make it work.

Madrid:

03-02-2017 11:25:26 UTC

Of course, that’s purely on the formal front, the rules are just tools of persuasion, not real formal constructs. You could just counter-CfJ (or any votable matter, really) any attack made against you with enough charisma and popularity, because Nomic works on a “consensus” reality, not a formal one.

(And I’m talking way too much lol, sorry but the topic’s just so interesting.)

pokes:

03-02-2017 12:16:48 UTC

for