Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Proposal: Montereys Coast

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 2-5 by Kevan.

Adminned at 29 Jan 2020 09:01:54 UTC

Add to the rule “Artefacts” a subrule called “The Spruce Needle” as follows:

Description: A single green strand of plant matter, slightly resinous; efforts to verify via DNA testing that it actually fell from a spruce tree have failed.
Location: Unknown
Protocol: If both the Spruce Needle and The [REDACTED] share a Secure Location, no Researcher may choose to begin occupying that Location.
Effect: Any [REDACTED] holding the Spruce Needle may Focus to move The [REDACTED] [REDACTED], The [REDACTED], or The [REDACTED REDACTED] from a [REDACTED] [REDACTED] to a [REDACTED] Location.

Add to the rule “Artefacts” a subrule called “The Flywheel” as follows:

Description: An inactive gyroscope, fully contained in a brass cylinder from which exterior gearing has been stripped, 1.3 meters in diameter.
Location: Unknown
Protocol: A Researcher must [REDACTED] with this Artefact whenever possible.
Effect: This Artefact is [REDACTED]. As its Behaviour it deals 10 [REDACTED] Damage to all Individuals in a randomly chosen [REDACTED] Location.

Add to the rule “Artefacts” a subrule called “The Checkers” as follows:

Description: A set of two polished bone discs with vertically oriented milling around their circumference, which may be stacked. One appears significantly older than the other.
Location: Unknown
Protocol: A [REDACTED] should never carry this Artefact.
Effect: Any [REDACTED] who successfully changes this Artefact’s Location to The Containment Facility is considered to have [REDACTED] [REDACTED].

This is nearly a word-for-word repost of “Not Enough Secrets,” with no Artefacts in the Containment Facility, to appease certain Collectors.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

28-01-2020 17:56:30 UTC

I didn’t notice this last time, but the double “[REDACTED REDACTED]” in the Spruce Needle won’t do anything.

Madrid:

28-01-2020 17:57:39 UTC

against Because this is super pro-Researcher, that’s a whole lot of redaction.

If it were more neutral Artefacts I’d be a lot more inclined to greentick this. But this isn’t the case.

Brendan: he/him

28-01-2020 18:00:38 UTC

Aha, that’s a typo, Kevan; there are supposed to be ] [ brackets between the words. Not sure if that qualifies for the admin-typo-fix rule or not.

card:

28-01-2020 18:12:12 UTC

against the checkers

Brendan: he/him

28-01-2020 18:12:42 UTC

card, can you elaborate on what about them is so objectionable?

Madrid:

28-01-2020 18:18:44 UTC

“is considered to have [achieved] [victory]?”

Brendan: he/him

28-01-2020 18:26:03 UTC

Or [Breached] [Protocol], [Begun] [Diving], [been] [idle], [caused] [Roaming], etc.

Madrid:

28-01-2020 18:28:05 UTC

I’m not really up for that level of bingo personally

Darknight: he/him

28-01-2020 18:41:37 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

28-01-2020 19:16:36 UTC

for

card:

28-01-2020 19:17:09 UTC

essentially what Cuddlebeam guessed first.

Josh: Observer he/they

28-01-2020 19:18:21 UTC

itt, the status quo beneficiaries continuing to vote in favour of the status quo

Tantusar: he/they

28-01-2020 23:14:23 UTC

against per card, a Researcher

Lulu: she/her

29-01-2020 00:45:23 UTC

against