Tuesday, February 05, 2019

Proposal: Accusations 3

Reaches quorum, 5-0 (with imperial def. becoming for, then regular def. becoming for). Enacted by pokes.

Adminned at 06 Feb 2019 12:47:55 UTC

Create a new rule, “Accusations”:

The number of allowed Accusations is 1.

If a Detective has done so fewer times in this dynasty than the number of allowed Accusations, they may publish an Accusation, which is a blog post that names one Possibility for each of the four Qualities of the Murder. Within 48 hours, the Chief shall comment on the Accusation stating whether all four Qualities in the Accusation are correct. If a Detective has submitted an Accusation and all four Qualities have been confirmed to be correct:
* If they do not have the Sidekick trait, they have achieved victory.
* If they do have the Sidekick trait, they may then specify in a comment on the Accusation that another Detective should achieve victory; the first Detective named in this way has then achieved victory.

If no player can publish an Accusation, the Chief can amend this rule to increment the number of allowed Accusations by 1.

When a player joins or deidles, for the purposes of this rule, they are considered to have published a number of Accusations equal to the number of allowed Accusations.

With more changes wished for in Accusations 2.



02-05-2019 23:15:18 UTC

Not voting because you can edit this within two hours. Change “When a player joins or deidles, for the purposes of this rule” to “When a player who has not been active in this dynasty joins or deidles, for the purposes of this rule” to fix a loophole involving idling and deidling to get new accusations.


02-05-2019 23:17:59 UTC

Also, as a suggestion, it would be nice to require the Chief to make a blog post when they do amend the rule.


02-05-2019 23:25:06 UTC

I don’t think that loophole is too concerning: Idling and deidling takes four days, and a returning player, having “made” all the allowed accusations, doesn’t get another.


02-06-2019 01:28:39 UTC

against for reasons already stated.


02-06-2019 01:37:42 UTC

I still don’t understand this loophole


02-06-2019 03:08:43 UTC

oh wait nevermind the loophole was fixed i just didn’t see it. Sorry.
for CoV


02-06-2019 04:21:41 UTC

I don’t even know what happened here but for


02-06-2019 08:23:42 UTC

There is a potential for a Sidekick to pick a Detective to win even if they have not been collaborating, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Kevan: HE/HIM

02-06-2019 08:46:09 UTC

This makes Sidekick a very minor downside for a player who has a collaborator (if Holmes wins he declares victory, if Watson wins he names Holmes who declares victory and invokes rule 1.7’s “may pass this role to another Detective at this point” to pass the victory back to Watson), but maybe the admission that you have (or are confident you can find) a collaborator is still a meaningful drawback.