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.
This favors Researchers who have a reason to pool their Locating information
Kevan: he/him
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?