BlogNomic: Is this a secure line?

Monday, October 04, 2010

Proposal: Is this a secure line?

Self-killed. —Brendan

Adminned at 04 Oct 2010 22:24:36 UTC

Create a new rule entitled ‘Communications’, containing the following:

As a weekly action, an Agent who has a Codename may send a message to another Agent who has a Codename by telephoning D-Ops with the subject line â€œACTION: CODENAME sending a message to CODENAME” where the first “CODENAME” is the Codename of the Agent sending the message, and the second “CODENAME” is the intended recipient. If valid, the D-Ops should forward the message alone to the recipient Agent.

The D-Ops may forward the message, with the Codename of either the sender or recipient, to any other single Agent.

My first prop, feel free to rip it apart.

Comments

Brendan: he/him

04-10-2010 17:10:08 UTC

This sort of implies a possibly-malevolent D-Ops, which is interesting but seems unlikely.

Thane Q:

04-10-2010 17:14:41 UTC

Was thinking the opposite, that there is a chance D-Ops can forward it, but not often, but felt it would be more interesting if it were at D-Ops discretion, and could forward on every message if he so chose. Either way, with D-Ops forwarding almost everything, or with it being mostly secure, I think it’d be interesting.

Purplebeard:

04-10-2010 17:35:30 UTC

I’d be in favour of a fixed chance that the message is intercepted by a random Agent.

Bucky:

04-10-2010 17:40:34 UTC

Should fail if the Agents are in different Locations/Sectors.

Kevan: he/him

04-10-2010 18:21:14 UTC

Seems a bit of an easy way to confirm an ally’s codename, but I suppose there’s always the chance of a later proposal that reveals the contents or senders of past messages.

Possibly-malevolent D-Ops doesn’t seem very interesting, though - I’d prefer an explicit “5% chance of message being intercepted by random Agent, 5% chance of it being misdelivered, 5% chance of it being lost” mechanic. Some modifiers for locations might be good too.