Thursday, June 01, 2017

Call for Judgment: Keeping a secret a secret

Timed out 1 vote to 3. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 03 Jun 2017 10:00:19 UTC

If upon the enaction of this CfJ, the proposal “Cold (and Hot) War” is pending it is considered to not contain the text “- Sabotage a Camp: Via letting all of the cold flow in and other hijinks, that Camp (and all of its content’s) Temperature lowers by 500 BTU. This action is performed by privately communicating it to the Expedition Leader, along their current Camp (this will be the Sabotaged Camp, even if the Spy move later), and then the Expedition Leader applying the effects as appropriate in a timely fashion.”

If upon the enaction of this CfJ the ruleset contians the text “- Sabotage a Camp: Via letting all of the cold flow in and other hijinks, that Camp (and all of its content’s) Temperature lowers by 500 BTU. This action is performed by privately communicating it to the Expedition Leader, along their current Camp (this will be the Sabotaged Camp, even if the Spy move later), and then the Expedition Leader applying the effects as appropriate in a timely fashion.” then remove that text from the ruleset.

In my opinion, having half of the Backgrounds being secret, as in having it impossible via the game mechanics to reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt the secret Backgrounds is important to keeping the secret roles aspect of the game. Seeing as “Cold (and Hot) War” has a chance of passing due to timing out if Sphinx doesn’t vote at all, I feel the need to make this CfJ. If enacted that proposal will allow someone who is a spy is able to confirm they are a spy via making a specific Camp cold.

Comments

Gaelan:

06-01-2017 06:20:59 UTC

for

pokes:

06-01-2017 10:33:02 UTC

I would be for this as a Proposal; it doesn’t need to be a CfJ.  against

card:

06-01-2017 15:26:54 UTC

[pokes] yes it does, if that other proposal passes someone could confirm they’re a spy in the time before this as a proposal could pass.

pokes:

06-01-2017 15:38:12 UTC

They could, but (if the proposal had passed) the rules are the rules. It just seems to me like too active a judiciary for the repeal to jump the queue, given that it’s not game-breaking. (sidebar: is the concept of an active judiciary very US-centric?)

card:

06-01-2017 15:49:23 UTC

It looks like it changed the minds of some of the voters, maybe I should have simply made an unofficial post to the blog to highlight my concern.

[pokes] I can’t seem to find the definition of “active judiciary”.

pokes:

06-01-2017 15:52:35 UTC

I’m​ analogizing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism , which does confirm that it’s pretty US-centric.

card:

06-01-2017 16:01:26 UTC

Maybe in Blognomic terms it would be “theme activism” or something.

We seemed to be going in a direction with partially secret identities, so as I explained above, I don’t want there to be a way to publicly confirm the already secret identities until victory is achieved.

It wouldn’t be a interesting if it were possible to be able to publicly confirm the scholar, spy or cultist. Even if such an action would be in accordance with the rules it would be against theme.

pokes:

06-01-2017 16:13:38 UTC

Ah, I meant “judicial activism” in the sense of the scope of CfJs (being the “judiciary”). I voted against mostly because I’d prefer a less active judiciary, meaning leaving changing mechanics to proposals and keeping CfJs for resolving differing interpretations of the Ruleset.

Kevan:

06-02-2017 08:45:12 UTC

against Given that “Cold (and Hot) War” has since failed.

card:

06-02-2017 14:17:27 UTC

against right