Sunday, November 04, 2007

Proposal: Fixing Acuity

Passed 11-1.  Brendan

Adminned at 05 Nov 2007 14:40:40 UTC

There are many odd cases in the current acuity points rules; here’s a try at cleaning them up.
This does overshadow most of the changes from “Recquiescat in Victus”, but I believe it includes the spirit of those changes.

In the rule “Poison”, delete

If a werewolf dies from poisoning and the apothecary is not a werewolf, he gains an Acuity point. If a non-werewolf dies from poisoning and the apothecary is a werewolf, he gains an Acuity point.

Replace the rule “Acuity Points” with:

Each villager accrues Acuity Points, which are tracked secretly by the Mayor.
Whenever any Villager becomes Dead (hereinafter “the deceased”), the Mayor will determine award Acuity Points to the other Villagers, as follows.

If the deceased is a Werewolf, no werewolves may be awarded Acuity Points for the death; similarly, if the deceased is not a Werewolf, only werewolves may be awarded Acuity Points for the death.
Also, no Villager may earn more than one acuity point for any single death.
Subject to these primary constraints, the Mayor shall award an Acuity Point to any Villager who, in his opinion, contributed to the death of the deceased.

“Contributing to the death of the deceased” includes, but is not limited to:
* Attacking (as per “Werewolves”) the deceased, causing his death
* Voting FOR the proposal that directly caused the death of the deceased.
* Creating an item that causes the death of the deceased
* Providing information that prompts others to kill the deceased.

With a subrule “Victory”:

If all living Villagers are Werewolves, or all living Villagers are not Werewolves, then the Mayor may post a blog entry announcing this, and listing the Acuity Points of all living and dead Villagers, whether or not they are werewolves, and any other secret information he has been tracking.  Upon posting this entry, the rule “Dead Men Tell No Tales” (if it still exists) is repealed.

Following that post, if all living villagers are werewolves, the werewolf (living or dead) with the most Acuity Points, may declare victory and assume the running of the village.
Similarly, following that post, if all living villagers are not werewolves, the non-werewolf villager (living or dead) with the most Acuity Points, may declare victory and assume the running of the village.

This way, as we come up with new and interesting ways to kill each other, Acuity Points will still work right.  Also, there is never an incentive to work against your own side.

posted by Tiberias at 04 Nov 2007 19:19:00 UTC Comments (19)

Comments

Rodlen:

04-11-2007 21:29:54 UTC

for

Amnistar: he/him

04-11-2007 21:42:43 UTC

So, once they are dead, a character can’t increase their acuity points, no matter what they do?  Even if a seance response results in the death of someone?

Brendan: he/him

04-11-2007 21:44:21 UTC

for But the usage of “he” in the Poison part is awfully vague.

Brendan: he/him

04-11-2007 21:45:57 UTC

I think you’re reading the proposal wrong, Amnistar—“providing information that prompts others to kill the deceased” is worth a point, and this version has no restriction on whether dead villagers can earn points.

Shadowclaw:

04-11-2007 21:52:09 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

04-11-2007 22:50:12 UTC

for

Tiberias:

04-11-2007 22:57:12 UTC

Brendan: The poison part’s already in the rules and is being removed, as it is superseded by the other changes.

Brendan: he/him

04-11-2007 22:58:49 UTC

Ack!  I see now.

Amnistar: he/him

04-11-2007 23:01:57 UTC

The question comes from the first line of acuity points:
“Whenever any Villager becomes Dead”

Which means, if you’re dead, you can’t gain new ones.

Brendan: he/him

04-11-2007 23:04:07 UTC

...  No, it doesn’t; did you finish reading the sentence?  It says that when you die other people may gain points.  It doesn’t say you stop gaining them.

Oracular rufio:

05-11-2007 00:29:20 UTC

for

Amnistar: he/him

05-11-2007 05:35:40 UTC

*head->desk*

misread that…wow…

for

Kevan: he/him

05-11-2007 08:25:16 UTC

Good work, but some blurriness…

“Creating an item that causes the death of the deceased” means that we potentially have to track the creator of every single gun and bullet and poison. And the Apothecary - who is, er, you - would have a big incentive to poison the well towards the end of the game.

“Providing information that prompts others to kill the deceased” is uncheckable, making it trivial for any killer to namecheck and thank their friends. Judging whether a piece of information “prompted” anyone seems a bit difficult, regardless.

The latter could be fixed by tacking “give 1 Acuity point to the Ghost of Bucky, if the person we’re lynching is a werewolf!” onto lynch meetings, so that everybody knows what’s going on. “Creating an item” seems irredeemably fiddly, though.

against

Kevan: he/him

05-11-2007 08:29:17 UTC

Oh, there’s already Acuity for poisoning. Well, I agree that this tracks it more fairly, if the creator of a gun or poison dies, but we just don’t have an easy way to keep track of which silver bullet was made by Spikebrennan, and which was made by whoever his successor will be. (We already have two distinct guns, one made by Amnistar and one created by proposal, without any way of knowing which is which.)

Tiberias:

05-11-2007 14:21:23 UTC

Kevan: I’ll be the first to admit that there’s a lot of fuzziness and subjectivity there, whether it’s determining whose seance response caused somebody’s death or whose gun was used to shoot someone.  That’s why, in the end, the rule leaves points to your discretion.

Also, the rule does not provide for tracking the creator of items; just be reasonable.

Kevan: he/him

05-11-2007 15:07:25 UTC

Ah, okay, I missed the “in his opinion”. Sorry.

for

BobTHJ:

05-11-2007 17:31:23 UTC

imperial due to the concerns Kevan raised. Close, but not quite there.

Bucky:

05-11-2007 18:11:39 UTC

for

aaronwinborn:

05-11-2007 21:56:05 UTC

for