Thursday, June 08, 2006

Proposal: Proposal: Hinting at Rules

Timed out (5-4) by Hix
Angry Grasshopper has 48 hours to make the strings and post about them, but witty strings are not required

Adminned at 10 Jun 2006 14:43:02 UTC

Change, in rule 2.10, the sentence:

Any game action taken under an Encrypted rule must be accompanied by a post to the front page stating that an Encrypted rule was used, although neither the Encrypted rule or the plaintext itself need be cited.

to:

Any game action taken under an Encrypted rule must be accompanied by a post to the front page with the subject of “Encrypted Rule” and the body beginning with the string unique to each encrypted rule.  These strings are kept by the Abbot, and shall be obtained by a Monk by messaging the Abbot once e feels e has successfully decrypted an encrypted rule.

Add to the end of the first paragraph of rule 2.10:

A Monk may not use an encrypted rule until e has obtained the string by messaging the Abbot.

Also, the Abbot will have 48 hours after the passing of this proposal to create the aforementioned strings.  Until then, encrypted rule usage would not change.  The Abbot is to make a post to the front page once e has created the strings, after-which a Monk may message the Abbot to obtain such a string.
If more than half of all comments containing counted votes also contain the text “witty”, then each string must be in some way a hint to the rule being used.  For example, if there was an encrypted rule with the plaintext “A Monk who possesses a Frog may use it often to gain 3 knowledge”, then an appropriate string would be “Consulting with Animal Guide”.


Now we get consistent hints, at least to what encrypted rules can do, if not what they do exactly.  Also, forgive the terrible, terrible example.  The spirit is there, I think.

Comments

Bucky:

08-06-2006 20:11:11 UTC

against

Bucky:

08-06-2006 20:12:29 UTC

Illegal edit!

Elias IX:

08-06-2006 20:14:42 UTC

Bucky, you veto.

TAE:

08-06-2006 20:29:38 UTC

for
This rule seems witty and interesting, unless of course it actually means something entierly other than what it appears to mean…

Purplebeard:

08-06-2006 20:31:10 UTC

Illegal veto!

I second Elias’s motion, and add a for

Bucky:

08-06-2006 21:05:19 UTC

It means that “A Monk may not use an encrypted rule until e has obtained the string by messaging the Abbot.”  which is why I voted against

Excalabur:

08-06-2006 22:24:21 UTC

furthermore, it means you have to have the plaintext, and not just the effect, of the rules.  Hints at the effect no longer help.

against

“And Solomon said, If he will show himself a worthy man, there shall not an hair of him fall to the earth: but if wickedness shall be found in him, he shall die. ” 1 Kings 1:53

Thelonious:

09-06-2006 07:51:53 UTC

for

Alcazar:

09-06-2006 16:19:26 UTC

for

How very witty.

Hix:

10-06-2006 00:12:30 UTC

against

Angry Grasshopper:

10-06-2006 18:09:09 UTC

I notice that the FOR votes are from those who don’t seem to have decrypted a lot of rules, and the AGAINST votes are from those who have.

Angry Grasshopper:

10-06-2006 18:10:14 UTC

Oh, forgot something.

for

Angry Grasshopper:

10-06-2006 18:11:59 UTC

I had just thought that Excalabur’s objection should prevail on me to change my vote, but anyone who can guess the effect of a rule can also guess the proper string, eventually, right?

Purplebeard:

10-06-2006 21:11:46 UTC

I did decrypt a few rules, so I guess I’m supposed to vote against . (COV)