Monday, January 18, 2010

Proposal: Incidents and Accidents

Reached quorum, 20 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 19 Jan 2010 04:52:46 UTC

Enact a new Rule, “Incidents”:-

As a daily action, and if the Lights are On, the Executor may announce an Incident. He does this by randomly selecting an item from the following list, updating the gamestate as specified, and posting a blog entry announcing its occurrence.

  1. The lights go out.
  2. Some kind of accident or revelation occurs in a randomly-selected room. If there are any Guests in that room, one of those Guests is selected at random and becomes Stunned or Terrified.
  3. The phone rings. The first non-Dormant player to leave a comment on the blog entry announcing it, while in the Parlor, will be privately given a Clue from the Executor. This Clue will truthfully confirm that a particular Guest of the Executor’s choosing is either not the Murderer, or not the Detective.

Enact a subrule to “Life and Death”, called “Recovery”:-

As a daily action, a Guest may Recover, and apply one of the following effects to themselves, of their choice:-

  • If they are Stunned, they become Asleep.
  • If they are Terrified and are in a room with more than two non-Dormant Guests, they become Healthy.
  • If they are Asleep, they become Healthy.
  • If they are Healthy, they become Asleep.

Remove “The state of the lights may be changed:” and the sentence beginning “By the Executor, as follows:” in Rule 2.6 (Lights).

A more strategically predictable version of Ienpw’s “the Executor may make anything happen” event proposal, a way for the lights to go out at more than my whim, and a method of recovering from being Stunned or Terrified. (Also a mechanism for going to sleep, if anyone’s tired.)

Comments

Klisz:

18-01-2010 15:51:33 UTC

imperial

spikebrennan:

18-01-2010 15:54:43 UTC

for

Anonyman:

18-01-2010 15:57:09 UTC

for

Oze:

18-01-2010 16:45:09 UTC

for

Uvthenfuv:

18-01-2010 17:07:02 UTC

for

Kneuronak:

18-01-2010 17:12:09 UTC

for

digibomber:

18-01-2010 18:13:41 UTC

for

NoOneImportant:

18-01-2010 18:15:32 UTC

against

You need to specify that Asleep guests are Dormant.

Kevan: he/him

18-01-2010 18:25:05 UTC

Rule 2.2 already says that “If a Guest is Dead, Stunned, Restrained, Terrified or Asleep, they are considered to be Dormant.”

yabbaguy:

18-01-2010 18:32:18 UTC

for

NoOneImportant:

18-01-2010 18:34:23 UTC

for

I can’t follow all your fast-paced new-fangled rules. ;)

Ornithopter:

18-01-2010 20:35:07 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

18-01-2010 20:50:07 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

18-01-2010 20:56:55 UTC

for

Nausved:

18-01-2010 21:17:11 UTC

for

alethiophile:

18-01-2010 21:23:59 UTC

I’m not sure I like the phone-ringing mechanism, since it requires you to be the first one there, but oh well.
for

redtara: they/them

18-01-2010 22:15:34 UTC

Actually, CoV against as this will give significant advantage to those lucky enough to be in the same time zone as Kevan.

NoOneImportant:

18-01-2010 22:58:37 UTC

Hmm… hadn’t that of that..

CoV imperial

Darknight: he/him

18-01-2010 23:38:33 UTC

for

alethiophile:

19-01-2010 00:54:49 UTC

What is Kevan’s time zone, by the way? No, no reason, why do you ask?

redtara: they/them

19-01-2010 02:00:30 UTC

He lives in the UK, IIRC. It’s not so bad for me, I’m GMT-4, but for people like Rodlen or Excalabur…

tecslicer:

19-01-2010 02:47:57 UTC

I am GMT-6 (or GMT+6 I can never remember. The one in the USA) but I don’t think it posses too much of a problem.

redtara: they/them

19-01-2010 02:52:39 UTC

Well, I can almost guarantee I will not be able to be on at a similar time to Kevan.

Dustin:

19-01-2010 03:03:26 UTC

for -6 is Central Standard Time, and is indeed in the US.

By the way, for the people CoVing from FOR to DEFERENTIAL, isn’t that the same as a FOR vote when the Executor makes a proposal (due to implicit?

Dustin:

19-01-2010 03:04:37 UTC

*(due to implicit author FOR vote)?

redtara: they/them

19-01-2010 03:16:35 UTC

Yes, it is. Darth hates when people do that. However, I personally use it to signify I would have voted DEF had it been another player’s proposal.

TrumanCapote:

19-01-2010 03:26:09 UTC

for

Excalabur:

19-01-2010 03:54:12 UTC

imperial

spikebrennan:

19-01-2010 04:06:00 UTC

Voting def on the Executor’s proposal is like saying “Meh, I don’t care but let the Executor set things up as he likes. “

Aquafraternally Yours:

19-01-2010 04:26:28 UTC

imperial

ais523:

19-01-2010 09:36:00 UTC

imperial I dislike the phone-ringing, but the rest of the rule is good.