Sunday, March 11, 2007

Proposal: Defining Double Agents

Vetoed by the Mastermind
Failed by Hix

Adminned at 12 Mar 2007 15:29:10 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule “Behavior of Double Agents”:

For the purposes of determining victory, a double agent’s affiliation is considered to be eir true affiliation.  For all other purposes, a double agent is considered to have the affiliation opposite of eir true affiliation, unless the rule being applied has a special provision for double agents.

Comments

Amnistar: he/him

11-03-2007 20:25:42 UTC

I like it, though it should have a condition that says a double agent can, at any time, switch from double agent to an agent of their true affiliation, or something along those lines.

Tiberias:

11-03-2007 20:43:20 UTC

Well, I figured that changing affiliations would be covered by future proposals.  That’s one of the reasons I put in that other rules can override this one if they want to.

Clucky: he/him

11-03-2007 20:43:39 UTC

imperial

Amnistar: he/him

11-03-2007 21:19:26 UTC

for I like it, it looks pretty good to me.

BabylonJasmine:

11-03-2007 22:25:23 UTC

for

tem2:

12-03-2007 01:05:32 UTC

for

Hix:

12-03-2007 03:24:12 UTC

against What?  There are 4 affiliations.  When we make rules, we should take that into consideration in the approporate way.  Why have this arbitrary restriction from the start?

Tiberias:

12-03-2007 04:10:47 UTC

Hix: What restriction?  I believe that, in many cases, this is how double agents will end up acting anyway.  If they shouldn’t for a given rule, then by all means include an exception.

This allows us to write rules that are more concise in the common case, without adding complexity to other situations.

Seebo:

12-03-2007 05:05:22 UTC

imperial

ChronosPhaenon:

12-03-2007 10:48:55 UTC

against per Hix

Rodney:

12-03-2007 15:40:39 UTC

against

Bucky:

12-03-2007 16:31:16 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

12-03-2007 17:48:35 UTC

for

Amnistar: he/him

12-03-2007 22:26:28 UTC

veto per hix