Saturday, September 04, 2021

Proposal: New Methods

Timed out and enacted, 6-0. Josh

Adminned at 06 Sep 2021 19:31:54 UTC

In the rule Censorship Terms, after the text “To censor a string of text is to replace every character in it (including spaces) with a █ character”, add “, and then optionally adding or removing up to 5 █ characters”.

The Brendan cell has developed an innovative new technique, and unless we move quickly, the state may find itself unable to fight back.



04-09-2021 19:36:04 UTC

I knew this would happen.


04-09-2021 19:38:05 UTC

An easy way out is to just make a new public cipher, though. Shrug.

Next time, post your ciphers right before you send the message.

Josh: he/him

04-09-2021 19:39:08 UTC

I doubt this will pass before Brendan posts his messages just before midnight.

But, yeah, there’s a reason why real insurgent cells don’t post their private keys on the government’s own website.


04-09-2021 19:55:12 UTC

Ah, true, true.


04-09-2021 20:40:01 UTC

btw couldn’t you remove all characters in some cases and make the censorship ‘invisible’?

Josh: he/him

04-09-2021 20:40:46 UTC

I’m trying to strip away your civil liberties slowly


04-09-2021 20:50:59 UTC

We might need the incentives to communicate privately with others at the same time to go up as well. If it becomes too difficult (or too risky) to privately communicate, it might as well just be a regular No Collab dynasty.

Josh: he/him

04-09-2021 20:56:31 UTC

Yeah I have some ideas around that. That’s for another proposal though; I don’t want the important business of plugging this crucial security leak to get wrapped up in the tediously factional procedures of day-to-day governance.


05-09-2021 01:02:03 UTC

I don’t think this solves the problem, it just means the messages need to use a less concise code.

lemon: she/her

05-09-2021 01:08:59 UTC


maybe a message just isn’t sent if it’s 100% censored? that way anything that utilizes the entire message as an obvious code is blocked


05-09-2021 08:24:10 UTC

A permanent solution could be to have a rule that says something like “Cells shall not attempt to bypass censorship via clever ways” and we can call it a day. Or just, have no private comms in the first place lol.

I think the intent is to gradually choke us, while we fight back and use what we can.


05-09-2021 08:24:26 UTC

for Anyways

Josh: he/him

05-09-2021 08:33:39 UTC

I think the ideal for me would be to end up in a place where you’re having to either accept slightly compromised solutions, or find ways to establish a fuzzy but workable communicative language through the restrictions that are available to you. I want players to bypass censorship in clever ways, but not in ways that make the censorship trivial - just making a public post renders the whole censorship game moot, and there’s no challenge to it, so I kind of have to respond or just repeal the censorship rule.

The game is to find ways of communicating that I either don’t notice or can’t legislate to prevent.

Kevan: he/him

05-09-2021 09:50:18 UTC


Darknight: he/him

05-09-2021 14:55:26 UTC


Raven1207: he/him

05-09-2021 15:54:55 UTC


Clucky: he/him

05-09-2021 18:13:23 UTC

Waiting for Brendan to tell me what an against vote is worth =D