Friday, July 07, 2023

Proposal: Bunker Mentality

Reached quorum 4 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 08 Jul 2023 16:30:38 UTC

If Proposal: Initialising, Phase One was not enacted then this proposal has no effect.

Set the Special Case rule No Collaboration to Active.

In the rule Initialisation, change the paragraph which begins with the text ‘Machinists who do not each have the other’s names in their Alliance’ to read as follows:

Machinists may never disclose, implicitly or explicitly, publicly or privately, their Agendas. If there are fewer than five Machinists who have either voted on a proposal or taken a dynastic action in the preceding 4 days then any Machinist may Impose Omerta by making a story post to that effect. When Omerta is Imposed, all Machinists are subject to the restrictions set out in the rule No Collaborations, regardless of their Alliances.

Net increase of 150 characters or so.

Comments

lemon: she/her

07-07-2023 10:26:48 UTC

per your comment on Phase One, i think this is worth a greentick! however, i do think that it should still restrict discussion of Agendas if there are 5+ active Machinists.

Kevan: City he/him

07-07-2023 12:25:39 UTC

This should probably be a lever and a klaxon rather than something that happens silently and automatically. Would be annoying to have to reveal a couple of days’ worth of private comms because nobody had noticed that a fifth player had fallen asleep.

(“Voted on a proposal” is also a slightly fiddly metric to check - a player’s ExpressionEngine profile will tell you when they last commented, but not when they last voted.)

Josh: he/they

07-07-2023 12:34:35 UTC

Thanks both - have made an edit

JonathanDark: he/him

07-07-2023 15:43:21 UTC

imperial

JonathanDark: he/him

07-07-2023 15:46:14 UTC

If this passes, we’ll have to amend it to allow the disclosure of Agendas in the DoV, per the Initialisation rule:

A Declaration of Victory based on this rule should include the text of each of the Agendas that contributed to the victory.

JonathanDark: he/him

07-07-2023 15:49:10 UTC

Also, is it reasonable to assume that “disclose” doesn’t apply to communications with the Great Machine since they will already know the Agendas of each Machinist and thus there is no “disclosure” occurring?

Kevan: City he/him

07-07-2023 16:20:46 UTC

As Brendan highlights on Discord by winking and inviting people to discuss strategy privately with him before this proposal enacts, it’s probably already too late to switch off private comms like this, when some players could have had time to discuss tactics and loopholes. We even have a victory condition on the books already!

against

Raven1207: he/they

07-07-2023 21:19:41 UTC

against

lemon: she/her

07-07-2023 22:14:50 UTC

for i still think this is worthwhile :0

Kevan: City he/him

08-07-2023 09:56:06 UTC

The “fewer than five Machinists” rule makes sense for heading off another 2-vs-1 endgame, but switching off No Collaboration right now upon enactment seems unrelated. Why is it a good idea to do that?

Bucky:

08-07-2023 15:55:44 UTC

for but would like to propose a limited private communication system to address Kevan’s concerns.

Kevan: City he/him

08-07-2023 16:06:25 UTC

That’s already there in one form in Alliances. If you and I want to talk privately, we just raise the big flag to show everyone that we’re talking to each other.

My concern is just that anyone who’d already teamed up and discussed tactics and brokered deals before this was proposed and enacted won’t have had to raise that flag.

Josh: he/they

08-07-2023 16:16:02 UTC

I have to be honest - on day two of the dynasty, that’s of limited concern to me, even notwithstanding Brendan’s theatrics.

Kevan: City he/him

08-07-2023 16:30:07 UTC

There was a victory condition in the first proposal, we could be looking at a two-day dynasty. Plenty to talk about and plan there.