Saturday, January 23, 2010

Proposal: Light in the Darkness

Timed out 13 votes to 6. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 25 Jan 2010 06:45:51 UTC

Add the following text to rule 2.6, “Lights”:

Should the Executor deem it impossible for the lights to be turned on based on the Dark Lists submitted to him, then he may consider himself a Guest (as per Rule 2.1) located in the Basement for the purposes of submitting a Dark List. This Dark List may only contain the action “Repair the fusebox”, and is processed after all other Dark Lists. After processing this Dark List, then the Executor is no longer considered a Guest for the purposes of Dynastic rules.

This should patch the loophole noted by Ornithopter.

Comments

redtara: they/them

23-01-2010 15:52:19 UTC

for

Keba:

23-01-2010 15:57:43 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

23-01-2010 16:03:32 UTC

for Seems a little odd that I have to partially become a Guest, rather than just letting me put the lights back on by changing the gamestate directly. It doesn’t seem to cause any problems now, but could inadvertently trigger future rules.

Oze:

23-01-2010 16:06:41 UTC

for

Greytyphoon:

23-01-2010 16:10:45 UTC

for

Anonyman:

23-01-2010 16:30:14 UTC

Sorry that it’s a little inelegant - I’m not very used to proposal-writing.

Klisz:

23-01-2010 17:09:09 UTC

This is amazing for what I believe to be Anonyman’s first proposal ever.

TrumanCapote:

23-01-2010 17:55:42 UTC

for

Anonyman:

23-01-2010 18:02:09 UTC

It’s not quite my first proposal - I proposed a ‘last player alive wins’ victory condition, had it shot down and then didn’t make another proposal until I was certain I knew the correct formatting and phrasing.

Ornithopter:

23-01-2010 18:20:27 UTC

for
Trying to imagine a future scam that starts with “Step One: Convince everyone not to turn the lights back on.”

Hix:

23-01-2010 18:35:38 UTC

against What a strange and unnecessary implementation.  We can always make a Crisis Proposal (or even a regular Proposal) to turn the lights on.

Kevan: he/him

23-01-2010 18:56:24 UTC

[Anonyman] Oh, explicitly referencing existing mechanics is definitely good practice - if the reference makes intuitive sense, then it’ll fit well with any past or future rules that use the same mechanisms.

This proposal would be great if we wanted the Executor to be thematically sneaking into the basement to pull the lever; since that seems a bit odd, though, it risks reacting oddly with future rules. (If a future rule lets people set fire to rooms to prevent any actions being taken in them, then the Executor will be as powerless as the rest of the players to fix the fusebox. Which makes perfect sense if we’re saying that the Executor actually has a secret hideout in the basement, but isn’t good for solving the problem of making sure the fusebox never becomes unfixable.)

Rodlen:

23-01-2010 19:45:52 UTC

for

There:

23-01-2010 20:29:58 UTC

for

Anonyman:

23-01-2010 20:41:54 UTC

Kevan: Now I have a wonderful mental image of the Executor hiding out in the basement, sneaking out when the lights are off and fiddling around with the fusebox to make sure that people can actually read Lord Cartlesham’s will…

ais523:

23-01-2010 21:36:37 UTC

for

alethiophile:

23-01-2010 22:13:20 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

23-01-2010 23:18:19 UTC

for

Uvthenfuv:

23-01-2010 23:29:37 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

24-01-2010 02:19:34 UTC

against
per Hix. There is a way (crisis) to avoid painting ourselves in a corner.

Purplebeard:

24-01-2010 13:27:33 UTC

against

Ornithopter:

24-01-2010 16:36:40 UTC

Crises won’t be enactable or proposable while the lights are out if Proposal: Light and Shade passes (and it looks like it will).

alethiophile:

24-01-2010 23:20:15 UTC

against CoV in favor of ‘Curse the Darkness’.

Excalabur:

25-01-2010 00:21:43 UTC

against

digibomber:

25-01-2010 04:04:04 UTC

against per Hix