Monday, December 17, 2012

Proposal: No one Expects…

Reached quorum 12 votes to 1. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 18 Dec 2012 01:43:38 UTC

Create a new rule, “Blessings”, with the text:

Each Believer has a number of Blessings, tracked in a GNDT column of the same name.

Create a new rule, “Inquisitions”, with the text:

As a weekly action, any Believer may perform an Inquisition by sending Auspex a private message that:
* Begins with the text “A charge of heresy as such:”;
* Names two Believers other than the sender as Collaborators;
* Names a single Cult as its Target; and
* Includes a single List of Heretics composed of Believers.

When the Auspex receives an Inquisition, if:
* The sender or either of the Collaborators is a member of the Target;
* The List of Heretics includes a Believer not in the Target; and
* There is a believer that is a member of the Target who is not named in the List of Heretics;
He may deem it unsuccessful. Otherwise, he may deem it successful.

If the Auspex deems an Inquisition unsuccessful, he may make a blog post exposing the Inquisition which:
* Names the sender and collaborators as the Inquisitors, but does not identify them as sender or collaborator; and
* Names the Target and the Believers in the List of Heretics.

If the Auspex deems an inquisition successful, he may:
* Reply to the Inquisition with a confirmation of its success; and
* Increase the the Blessings of the sender and both Collaborators by the square of half the number of members in its Target.



17-12-2012 05:23:39 UTC



17-12-2012 05:24:14 UTC

for looks like a fun dynamic

quirck: he/him

17-12-2012 07:33:20 UTC



17-12-2012 10:44:50 UTC


Kevan: he/him

17-12-2012 11:30:54 UTC

for Good stuff. “Collaborator” seems like a misleading noun, though, given that they don’t have to do anything, and can’t even opt out of taking part. They seem more like Scapegoats.


17-12-2012 14:45:38 UTC

@Kevan, I was trying to find a term that was ambiguous - they might be collaborators (and from a strategic perspective, I would guess they often would be, considering all three get points so it would make sense for people to try to work together). I wanted a term that could be either a good or bad thing - consider the use in Europe under the occupation. But I’m not married to it if you have a better idea.

Kevan: he/him

17-12-2012 14:59:23 UTC

“Accessory”, maybe? Strategically I’d expect to see some Inquisitions where the named Collaborators were just a couple of randomly-chosen zero-Blessing Believers.


17-12-2012 15:02:14 UTC

Kevan, I completely agree, many will just be named to obscure who was in on the plot and who exactly sent the inquisition, but the idea was that there should be some of both.

Josh: he/they

17-12-2012 16:26:54 UTC



17-12-2012 16:59:01 UTC

for Though I believe one of the Unsuccessful conditions should be enough for the Inquisition to be deemed Unsuccessful.


17-12-2012 17:15:43 UTC



17-12-2012 17:17:36 UTC


RaichuKFM: she/her

17-12-2012 17:19:47 UTC



17-12-2012 19:55:29 UTC


Clucky: he/him

17-12-2012 19:55:30 UTC

against Seems abusable. Four people run dummy cults with no other members. 1 collaborates with 2 and 3, lists everyone but 4, names 4’s cult. 2 collaborates with 3 and 4, lists everyone else but 1, names 1’s cult.

147 points per player per week.


17-12-2012 20:19:09 UTC

Actually, if you name someone who is not in the cult, your inquisition may be deemed unsuccessful. So it would be 0.25 (One member in the cult, half of that is 0.5, square of that) points per player per inquisition. Having 3 Inquisitions per player, thats 0.75 points per player per week. Does not seem that abusable to me. The heretics list is supposed to be made of all the people in the cult, not the people NOT in the cult.


17-12-2012 20:28:19 UTC

@Clucky ((1 / 2) ^ 2) rounded down = 0.25).

Though I agree, there needs to be some penalty to having your cult inquisitioned. A proposal is in the works.