Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Proposal: It Takes One To Know One

Fewer than a quorum of players are not voting AGAINST. Failed 1-6 by Kevan.

Adminned at 05 Feb 2015 18:57:18 UTC

In the rule “Trust”, add a subrule “Trust Modifier”:

The Ship’s Computer will privately track a Trust Modifier for each Android. The Trust Modifier is an integer and can be negative. If the Trust Modifier has not been set for a specific Android, it defaults to zero. Each time an Android Sabotages a proposal, their Trust Modifier is lowered by one. Each time a Demand Proposal is enacted, the Android who submitted the Demand Proposal will have their Trust Modifier increased by one.

When determining the Android with the highest Trust, the Android with the highest total of Trust and Trust Modifier shall be considered to have the highest Trust.

And add a new subrule to “Androids” titled, “Identities”

No earlier than February 10th, 2015, the computer shall send a private message to each Android player informing them of the usernames of each Android. Starting on February 10th, 2015, whenever a Crewmember becomes an Android, whether through conversion, scanning, or any other process, the Ship’s Computer shall send a private message to the new Android informing them of the usernames of all other Androids and a private message to each existing Android informing them of the username of the new Android.



Josh: he/they

03-02-2015 20:21:43 UTC


RaichuKFM: she/her

03-02-2015 20:48:59 UTC



03-02-2015 20:49:39 UTC

Any particular reason?


03-02-2015 20:49:59 UTC


Brendan: he/him

03-02-2015 20:57:31 UTC

imperial I am very interested to hear why you expect this proposal to survive when it seems functionally identical to the one that got vetoed. Are you trying to communicate with them via some kind of obscure code?

Brendan: he/him

03-02-2015 20:57:55 UTC

*the one that got sabotaged, that is.


03-02-2015 21:47:54 UTC

It is not functionally identical, because this one actually lets them know each others’ identities.

The other one was broken and wouldn’t give them that benefit. So I have no idea whether they objected to the brokenness or the idea/implementation of the Trust Modifier.

Perhaps a tickertape could be submitted with thoughts?

RaichuKFM: she/her

04-02-2015 01:31:19 UTC

The reason is clearly that they can’t vote for this, because that would expose them as likely Androids.

Now, the first part I actually like.


04-02-2015 04:31:05 UTC

That’s the whole point. The first part balances out the second part. A reasonable limitation on sabotage combined with something useful for them.

Darknight: he/him

04-02-2015 05:40:45 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

05-02-2015 08:51:11 UTC

against The metaphor behind the idea of “Trust” is getting too hazy here.


05-02-2015 17:22:31 UTC

against  per Kevan