Friday, January 24, 2020

Proposal: National Treasure

Less than quorum not voting AGAINST. Fails 6-2. (incl. 4 def., imperial deferential rules against in a tie.)—Tantusar

Adminned at 25 Jan 2020 03:11:54 UTC

If the Director votes against this proposal it does nothing.

Amend the text of the rule Locating Artefacts to read as follows:

Each Artefact whose Location is Unknown can be found by Investigating a series of clues.

Whenever an Artefact’s Location becomes Unknown, the Director should generate a list of ten secret random Public or Esoteric Places, and then eliminating any repeated Places on the list (retaining only the first instance of each Place). This constitutes the ordered list of Locations that need to be Investigated to find that Artefact, and can be referred to as that Artefact’s Discovery Sequence.

As a Daily Action, an Individual may Investigate a Location. To do so, they must Travel to a new Place, including in the comment box of the change on the Individuals Wiki page the words “Investigating x for clues regarding y”, where x is the destination to which they are Travelling and y is the name of an Artefact whose Location is Unknown. As soon as possible thereafter, but preferably within 24 hours, the Director should then privately communicate the results of the Investigation with the Investigating Individual. If the Place that was Investigated is on the named Artefact’s Discovery Sequence then the Director should respond with the next Place in that Artefact’s Discovery Sequence. If there is no next Place then the Director should instead indicate that they have reached the end of the Discovery Sequence. If the Place that was Investigated is not on the Discovery Sequence for that Artefact then the Director should provide a null response.

An Individual may at any time make a story post to the blog (with a title that contains the [Search] tag) describing a sequence of Places to which they have Travelled, in order, without any omissions, and which Artefact they were looking for. If that sequence of Places matches the Discovery Sequence for the named Artefact, then the Director should respond indicating as such; otherwise, they should respond indicating against. If the Director’s response if affirmative then the Individual has found the Artefact for which they were searching, and may update its Location to be in their possession (or Collection) at their earliest opportunity.

If two or more Individuals have extant posts tagged [Search] which refer to the same Artefact then they must be evaluated in the order in which they were posted, with only the first such post to have met the criteria for success being evaluated as successful by the Director. Whenever an Artefact’s Location ceases to be Unknown, the Director should cease tracking any Discovery Sequence information for it, and any ongoing Investigations do not need to be responded to.

The Director should, at their first opportunity, generate Discovery Sequences for all currently extant Artefacts with Unknown Locations.

An attempt to make finding Artefacts a bit more dynamic.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2020 13:56:04 UTC

Should the “list of random Public Places” include or exclude repeats? I guess it should exclude if the searching is returning the “next Place”, as this would be ambiguous.

What’s “the next Place in that Artefact’s Discovery Sequence” if you’re at a place that isn’t in the sequence? The first place in the list, or null?

Josh: Observer he/they

24-01-2020 14:04:18 UTC

Thank you - I have amended to omit repeats and provide null responses when Investigations take place in unrepresented Places.

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2020 14:23:08 UTC

Alright. So would I be correct to interpret “generate a list of random Public or Esoteric Places (between 2 and 6 items in length, with any repeats omitted)” as picking a number of my choice between 2 and 6, rolling private dice for that many places, and then striking repeats (removing all but the first of duplicates)?

(I have to be carefully pedantic about this one because it’s not a public action: you won’t notice if I interpret it differently, and I might be giving away information if I have to ask clarifying questions about it during the game.)

Josh: Observer he/they

24-01-2020 14:27:17 UTC

No I appreciate the pedantry.

I think that the list should be 2-6 after omissions; I’ll try to re-word.

Josh: Observer he/they

24-01-2020 14:28:32 UTC

That better?

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2020 14:45:28 UTC

Omitting items “until the list is a random length between 2 and 6 items long” feels complex - I don’t think the length can be both random (in the “uniform probability distribution” required by the ruleset) and defined by the list’s members. And I’m not sure how it’s expecting me to deal with the unlikely edge case where all the entries happen to be identical.

Would it work to drop that clause? Generating a list of (say) ten random Places and then eliminating repeats would give a list of a length between 1 and the number of Places. And a (very unlikely) single-item list would still function.

Josh: Observer he/they

24-01-2020 14:52:17 UTC

Let’s give that a try - how does it look?

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2020 14:57:52 UTC

That works, I think. Maybe tweak “secretly generate a list of ten random” to “generate a list of ten secretly random” to match the ruleset definition of “secretly random”, but it’s probably clear enough anyway.

Josh: Observer he/they

24-01-2020 15:02:09 UTC

Done. Thank you :)

Brendan: he/him

24-01-2020 15:15:14 UTC

for

derrick: he/him

24-01-2020 15:31:03 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2020 15:46:45 UTC

imperial Whether to actually add this complexity is up to the players, of course.

Madrid:

24-01-2020 16:43:25 UTC

against This favors Researchers who have a reason to pool their Locating information

Lulu: she/her

24-01-2020 16:47:33 UTC

imperial

Darknight: he/him

24-01-2020 20:18:37 UTC

imperial

Tantusar: he/they

25-01-2020 03:05:45 UTC

against per Cuddlebeam.