Saturday, October 27, 2007

Proposal: Commune with the Dead take 2

time out, passed 8-4—the ‘seance’ bit only had 3 votes, so was not enacted. the first part enacted by aaronwinborn.

Adminned at 29 Oct 2007 11:00:09 UTC

Create a new rule called “Ghost” with the text:

Any village that is Dead is considered a Ghost.  A Ghost may privately email the Mayor announcing their intention to haunt a named Villager, in an email with the subject “Haunting [Villager Name]” - upon reception of the email, this Villager becomes that Ghost’s target.

Whenever a Ghost’s target is killed by Werewolves as a result of Rule 2.2, the Mayor will email the Ghost (if there is one, and if they are still alive) with an alphabetised list of Villagers who the Ghost has seen on the streets that night. This list shall consist of a random Werewolf involved in the attack, plus a N other randomly selected villagers where N is half(rounded up) of all living Villagers, excluding the previously selected werewolf.

If more than half the votes contain the text “I Like the Seance”
Create a sub-rule of the rule Ghost “Seance”

During the immediately following night time period after a werewolf has slain a villager, any living villager may make a Town Meeting Seance proposal by posting a proposal with the phrase ‘Town Meeting Seance’ in its title, so long as there isn’t already a pending Town Meeting Seance proposal. Any Villager that votes in the Town Meeting Seance, may post a single question to a Ghost, by including in their vote the phrase “I ask “Ghost” “Question”,  where “Ghost” is the name of any Ghost and “Question” Is any question.  If the Seance is successful, a story post is made (by the enacting admin) with the title “Seance Results” and the contents of the post will contain each question asked at the previous seance.  Each Ghost may respond to each question that was ask of them, with a single word, and may not post any other information.

 

obviously in rough draft form, but it allows people to communicate beyond the grave…somewhat…I expect this proposal to fail, but with the idea out there, perhaps someone will be able to pick up on the concept and rephrase to suit our needs.

Comments

Rodlen:

27-10-2007 16:10:44 UTC

I Like The Seance. for

aaronwinborn:

27-10-2007 17:04:18 UTC

for I Like the Seance

Chivalrybean:

27-10-2007 17:10:29 UTC

I believe the first try at this will pass unless votes are changed.

Tesla4D:

27-10-2007 17:37:42 UTC

for I like the Seance!!

Bucky:

27-10-2007 20:07:25 UTC

for

The Seance part needs serious revision.  First off, it doesn’t state that it takes precedence over Rule 2.4, meaning that the answers can’t communicate any information about Villagers. 

Also, the one-word restriction isn’t really a restriction;  I could answer by concatenating several words together. For example:

Are you the Actuary?
Yesbutidonothavehaironmyback.

Chivalrybean:

27-10-2007 20:17:29 UTC

for I agree with Bucky.

Amnistar: he/him

27-10-2007 21:01:07 UTC

that’s why I let the second part be used or not, the ideas was to allow people to add the ghost rule (which people don’t have problems with)

BobTHJ:

27-10-2007 21:46:27 UTC

for

Shadowclaw:

27-10-2007 23:51:17 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

27-10-2007 23:54:05 UTC

for

Hix:

28-10-2007 01:58:36 UTC

against  against  against “killed by Werewolves as a result of Rule 2.2”

I think you mean something else.

Oracular rufio:

28-10-2007 03:53:40 UTC

against
Good point.  I’m also kind of confused by the “if there is one, and they are still alive” part.  Ghosts aren’t alive sort of by definition, right?  Did you mean, “if they are active”?  Or is that referring to the Mayor, in which case this will actually have no effect since the Mayor isn’t alive either?

Oracular rufio:

28-10-2007 04:17:04 UTC

For the record, though, I do not feel a need to define what the word “word” means in the ruleset.

Amnistar: he/him

28-10-2007 04:42:40 UTC

bah!  coppied the text from the watchman rule, to make sure wording was right
apparently I f’d up that still :)

Kevan: he/him

29-10-2007 17:51:27 UTC

against