Call for Judgment: Suspicious Actions, Clarified
failed 3-0
-lemon
Adminned at 28 Jun 2023 22:30:04 UTC
Uphold that the Mindjacking carried out by Bucky at 16:19:00 on 27 June and the subsequent Ascending were not illegally carried out on the basis of Bucky’s Suspicion score.
If either Proposal: Too Tangled or Call for Judgment: Palatable potency were enacted, then this CfJ has no effect.
In the rule “Astromancy”, replace “not Potent” with “Baseline”.
In the rule “Reality Enforcers”, remove the bullet point reading “Any action whose Potency or Potent status is referred to by that action’s rules grants Suspicion equal to its Potency.” and add the following bullet points to the list.
* An Astromantic Ritual grants Suspicion equal to the Potency of the Mindjacker who performs it.
* Resonance Testing grants Suspicion equal to the Potency of the Mindjacker who performs it.
* Skywriting grants Suspicion equal to the Potency of the Mindjacker who performs it.
* Blameshifting grants Suspicion equal to the Potency of the Mindjacker who performs it.
In the same rule, change “Superencryption grants 2 Suspicion.” to “Superencryption grants 2 Suspicion plus Suspicion equal to the Potency of the Mindjacker who performs it.” and “Extrasensory Assassination grants 4 Suspicion.” to “Extrasensory Assassination grants 4 Suspicion plus Suspicion equal to the Potency of the Mindjacker who performs it.”.
Then, reorder the list of Suspicious Actions to the order that they appear in the ruleset, with the earliest at the top and the latest at the bottom.
here’s an alternative to “Palatable potency” that’s significantly less disruptive; this should maintain the current status of the Suspicious Actions list while still making it more explicit what it means!
my reasoning for considering Superencryption & Assassination the same as before is that two items on the same list applying weren’t mutually exclusive, so both would apply; my reasoning for considering Skywriting and Blameshifting the same as before is that the “Forkable” rule refers to Potent status.
Josh: he/they
I’ll likely be mildly against this as, as far as I can see, the differences between it and Palatable potency are minor and come at the cost of a lot more words in an already wordy and hard to manage ruleset.