Tuesday, February 23, 2021

Proposal: I Heard A Rumor…

Self-killed. Josh

Adminned at 25 Feb 2021 15:45:17 UTC

In “Ethics of the Nobility” replace

At any time, any Elector may send the Doge a Rumour by private message, outlining an offence that has been carried out against them (where an offence is a betrayal, a breach of trust, a broken promise, or similar) and naming the Elector who carried it out. The Doge must then, at their earliest opportunity, post it to the blog as a Rumour Post (in the story post category), anonymising the names of the originator of the Rumour and its subject but including them as a sha256 hash.

Each Elector may then make a Response, where a Response must comprise of both of the following elements: a public statement (made in a comment to the Rumour Post) setting out briefly what their response to the Rumour will be, and a private message to the Doge giving a Mistrust score change between -1 and 2, inclusive.

with

At any time, any Elector may send the Doge a Rumour by private message, outlining an offence that has been carried out against them (where an offence is a betrayal, a breach of trust, a broken promise, or similar) and naming the Elector (the subject) who carried it out. The Doge must then, at their earliest opportunity, post it to the blog as a Rumour Post (in the story post category), sharing the offense but anonymizing the names of the originator of the Rumour and the subject by only sharing a sha265 of a string consisting of the name of the originator of the Rumour, followed by the name of the subject, followed by at least 8 other characters known as the salt. The Doge should keep track of these strings, but may not reveal them to anyone until after the dynasty is over. Trying to reverse the contents of the hash is considered in violation of fair play.

Each Elector may then make a single Response, where a Response must comprise of both of the following elements: a public statement (made in a comment to the Rumour Post) setting out briefly what their response to the Rumour will be, and a private message to the Doge giving a Mistrust score change between -1 and 2, inclusive. This change is then applied to the subject of the rumor. An Elector may only make a Response to Rumour if they do so within 48 hours of the Rumour Post being made.

I heard a rumor you ensured the subject and originator of rumors are properly anonymized and that the change in mistrust on rumors actually did something.

posted by Clucky at 23 Feb 2021 17:10:00 UTC Comments (10)

Comments

Josh: he/they

23-02-2021 19:32:42 UTC

What’s this changing? Or is it just tightening up language?

Clucky: he/him

23-02-2021 19:40:21 UTC

Its mostly just changing some stuff that was overlooked. (like the fact that “giving a Mistrust score change between -1 and 2, inclusive” doesn’t do anything, and was presumably supposed to effect the target; that the rumor text itself should be public as otherwise you’re just voting on a hash; and that the hash shouldn’t be easily reversible)

nothing here is intended to be different from the original spirit of the rule. but feel free to take a look at let me know if I got anything wrong.

Josh: he/they

23-02-2021 19:42:55 UTC

Hm, the risk is that mistrust gets applied twice - it does actually currently do something, it gets applied as part of Masquerade, and it being both there and here might mean that it gets duped

Brendan: he/him

23-02-2021 20:23:37 UTC

I thiiink the rule as it stands allows Josh to salt the hashes—“including them as a sha256 hash” could mean “originator: Brendan / subject: Clucky” or “Brendan->Clucky” or “O Brendan, S Clucky” etc, since each of those hashes is inclusive of both names.

Clucky: he/him

23-02-2021 20:48:27 UTC

It allows Josh to salt the hashes, but it also allows him not to.

I feel like it is a huge stretch to argue

“and a private message to the Doge giving a Mistrust score change between -1 and 2” somehow effects “They must then enact changes to Mistrust in the gamestate.”

First off, it doesn’t currently say who the change is to.

Secondly, I think the idea that there is this thing called a “mistrust score change” that starts off in pending state, then can get “enacted” and when enacted it changes someone’s mistrust by the stated amount but then can’t be enacted again… that to me is doing a lot of heavy lifting that there simply isn’t enough in the rules to support.

Also either “This change is then applied to the subject of the rumor.” would be enough to make the change no longer pending (so the next Masquerade update wouldn’t effect it) or “They must then enact changes to Mistrust in the gamestate.” isn’t enough to make the change no longer pending (so every single Masquerade would keep on re-applying it)

Josh: he/they

23-02-2021 20:57:37 UTC

@Clucky What We Do In The Shallows fixes that - “The sum of all such Response-changes to Mistrust which are sent to the Doge within 48 hours of the posting of the Rumour then accrues to the Mistrust of the Rumour’s subject, though this accrual is not effective until the next time the Doge stages a Masquerade.”

https://blognomic.com/archive/what_we_do_in_the_shallows

Clucky: he/him

23-02-2021 21:54:19 UTC

ah I searched the pending proposals for the rule and didn’t see it. Didn’t occur there might be pending proposals that just target certain parts.

Clucky: he/him

24-02-2021 02:18:00 UTC

against as the other proposal has now passed

Lulu: she/her

24-02-2021 20:45:25 UTC

against

Madrid:

25-02-2021 09:40:52 UTC

against