Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Proposal: Order, Order

Self-killed by proposer. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 21 Jan 2015 09:11:26 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled The Triumph of Reason:

The Ship’s Computer operates more effectively when the parameters of its operation are defined.

The total number of Dynastic Rules and sub-rules to Dynastic Rules can be referred to as the Ship Computer’s Organisation Index (or OI).The Ship’s Computer has a variety of subroutines that can be used when its OI exceeds certain thresholds. Any crew member may request that the Ship’s Computer may run a subroutine at any time. However, all subroutines are weekly actions for the Ship’s Computer. The Ship’s Computer should honour subroutine requests at their first opportunity, if they are able and if the OI threshold has been met, and should prioritise subroutine requests on the basis that more recent requests are honoured first.

These subroutines, their respective thresholds, and their effects are as follows:

  • MD1C - Threshold: 8 OI. Upon confirmation from the Ships’s Computer that this subroutine has been successfully activated, the requester may change one of their Emotions to an Emotion adjacent in its Nature.
  • S33R - Threshold: 12 OI. The Ship’s Computer must send the requester the most recent piece of communication they have received from an Android.
  • DFND - Threshold: 15 OI. The Ship’s Computer must disregard any communications or orders received from Androids in the 24 hours following the commencement of this subroutine. The Ship’s Computer should notify the requester when this subroutine commences.
  • XP0S - Threshold: 21 OI. The Ship’s Computer must pick a random Crewmember, and tell the requester whether that Crewmember is Human or Android.

Comments

Bucky:

20-01-2015 20:10:18 UTC

against

Are subrules supposed to count twice?

Also, DFND is game-breaking and SEER is almost game-breaking.  And timing sensitivity is also an issue.

Josh: Observer he/they

20-01-2015 20:21:37 UTC

Oh, hey, sub-rules are defined! Neat.

Not sure that either of those are actually game-breaking but then I also don’t want to discuss potential Android strategies out in the open.

Bucky:

20-01-2015 20:27:34 UTC

I guess how game-breaking depends on whether blog/GNDT comments are considered ‘communication’.

Kevan: he/him

20-01-2015 21:01:43 UTC

I like the concept a lot here, but there’s some fuzziness: the potential for a “request” to include anonymous private communications is great (that even the Computer won’t always be able to tell you who accessed it), but I won’t be able to confirm that any given email came from a Crewmember, and “more recent requests are honoured first” is just an incentive to spam me. And a weekly action is a long time in Nomic, with the average dynasty lasting a month.

The risk of S33R being triggered early and outing even an ultra-cautious Android seems enough for us to hold back on this one, though. But if this fails, it’d be good to see a version of it being reproposed; I’ll try it if nobody else gets there first.

against

Josh: Observer he/they

20-01-2015 21:11:44 UTC

against s/k, as the Ship Computer’s assent is necessary in some cases as per the second paragraph of rule 2.1.

Kevan: he/him

20-01-2015 22:16:47 UTC

Hmm, we should probably be tracking that in rules when it happens, shouldn’t we?

_Fox_:

21-01-2015 05:34:12 UTC

S33R sounds like it would be fun if it were just the message, but not the identity of the sender.