Wednesday, September 01, 2021

Proposal: Serving the Pie

Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST: failed 1 vote to 7 with 1 unresolved DEF, by Kevan.

Adminned at 03 Sep 2021 10:01:30 UTC

Add a subrule of “Communications”, named “Public Communications”:

Any public discussion comprised of plausibly-meaningful English text is not considered to be a circumvention of No Collaboration.

From Slack discussion: Arranging a secret plan through Communications that is to be activated when a public message, e.g. “pie is served”, is posted publicly, is ambiguously a “creative strateg[y] to circumvent this rule”. But it feels thematically appropriate to allow it under the watchful eye of the Ministry (so long as the public text isn’t the likes of “1d3b2e9790ea7245aa96c9b93031daed” flying around).

Comments

Kevan: City he/him

01-09-2021 13:08:47 UTC

This is a bit generous, isn’t it? If the skeleton key of “plain English” can remove the “could not reasonably be privy to” restrictions, I can coordinate with you openly but unfathomably by referring to some private knowledge that I know we alone share from a previous dynasty or conversation (even a private, and legal, non-game conversation held five minutes previously).

It’s also easy to convey “1d3b2e9790ea7245aa96c9b93031daed” through plausible English if that’s somehow a thing you’d want to do - just write it out as “oh look, it’s the number one followed by the fourth letter of the alphabet followed by…”

Kevan: City he/him

01-09-2021 18:11:17 UTC

against

Raven1207: he/they

01-09-2021 19:05:38 UTC

against

Josh: he/they

01-09-2021 19:16:04 UTC

imperial I agree with the premise.

Brendan: he/him

01-09-2021 19:17:50 UTC

imperial

lemon: she/her

01-09-2021 22:25:32 UTC

against i’d rather see the creative strategies clause be tweaked! it is a “may” after all, maybe we adjust it (or our interpretations of it) so that its not a violation to mess with this rule in ways encouraged by the dynastic rules

Janet: she/her

02-09-2021 01:25:32 UTC

against

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

02-09-2021 03:44:42 UTC

against

Raven1207: he/they

03-09-2021 02:07:09 UTC

against

Kevan: City he/him

03-09-2021 09:56:01 UTC

Note to other admin: I nearly failed this by eye (Josh’s vote becomes AGAINST, Brendan’s remains DEF), but Raven has voted twice.

Darknight: he/him

03-09-2021 09:59:05 UTC

against