Saturday, January 07, 2023

Proposal: The Chalk Circle

Withdrawn -SingularByte

Adminned at 09 Jan 2023 07:46:07 UTC

In “Mansion Phase”, replace “If exactly one Explorer performed a Summoning Attempt this turn, that Explorer achieves victory” with:-

If exactly one Explorer performed a Summoning Attempt this turn, then Katastrophe Manifests to that Explorer

Add a subrule to “Possession” called “Manifestation”:-

When Katastrophe has Manifested to an Explorer, the blog post in which the Narrator announced this is considered to be a Manifestation Post. If an Explorer’s most recent comment on such a post names two Explorers (including idle Explorers) identifying one as Nemesis and another as Ally (where neither Explorer is themselves), then they are considered to be Accusing the Nemesis and Supporting the Ally.

The Strength of an Accusation is a non-integer number equal to the number of Explorers who are Supporting the Explorer who made it, plus 0.1 for each Item held by the Accuser.

When a Manifestation Post has at least seven Accusations against a named Explorer (or idle Explorer), or is over 48 hours old:
* If it has at least seven Accusations against an Explorer (or idle Explorer) who has never been possessed by Katastrophe, the Narrator should confirm this and the Explorer who Katastrophe Manifested to achieves victory
* Otherwise, if it has at least seven Accusations against an Explorer (or idle Explorer) who is currently possessed by Katastrophe, or who has been in the past, the Narrator should select the Strongest of those Accusations (resolving ties randomly): the Explorer who made that Accusation achieves victory
* Otherwise, if it is over 48 hours old then the Explorer who Katastrophe Manifested to achieves victory

If Katastrophe has Manifested to an Explorer, then no idle Explorer may be made unidle, and no new player joining requests may be administered.

Social deduction endgame, given how likely it’s looking that summoning will be done by an acolyte of Katastrophe. If the group can reach agreement on the identity of Katastrophe in response to its summoning, then the demon is instead defeated.


SingularByte: he/him

07-01-2023 14:50:45 UTC


I object to this on the following grounds:
1. It is way too late to significantly change the victory condition like this. The whole game has been about collecting fragments thus far, so retroactively requiring that the katastrophe has been absolutely secret in the process otherwise they just automatically lose is kind of absurd.
2. This change effectively removes the katastrophe’s abilities to use any malfeasances whatsoever, even retroactively, otherwise they can get accused and defeated on the spot. This hits a 2-person team especially hard since the other team member will be spending most of that time actively hunting and collecting the fragments.
3. There’s no reasonable way to pick a winner here. When I say right here that I am literally the katastrophe, the game turns into a popularity contest between the remaining 11 players, rather than having any connection to the gameplay so far. Not to mention, if anyone actually does manage to outwit me and steal the win from TDS’s grasp, that winner literally lose on the basis that I’m already outed.
4. This change invalidates all set-up that I’ve performed during the entire game - the careful laying out of malfeasances in key rooms, the maneuvering of the cat to retain it every turn since turn 3 despite multiple people searching for it, the careful spreading out of fragments early on to avoid too much suspicion on my team member, the careful arguments against key nerfs while allowing some level of harmful ones in to avoid rousing suspicion. All of that gets discarded on the basis of an instant loss.

All in all, I really don’t like this proposal. Especially not when we’ll literally have all 3 fragments this very turn.

Josh: he/they

07-01-2023 17:49:22 UTC

I’m a little on the fence about this.

On the one hand, a core principle of nomic is that proposals can come in at any time, so if you want to win you have to be circumspect; While SingularByte has done a good job of keeping his hand veiled, the fact of a two-person cabal involving TDS has been obvious for quite some time now, so the fundamental argument that you can’t try to win and expect people not to work to oppose you applies here.

On the other, SingularByte is correct that the scheme has shown considerable craft, misdirection and restraint, and that this approach has come up right at the last, after more limited attempts to block the approach to victory have come and gone. There is no glory to denying victory to a hail-mary rule change in the last seconds; while proposal can do anything, there is a lot that they shouldn’t do, and this may be one of them. If it became convention for all contested conventional victories to be undone by 11th hour rule changes then the game would become unplayable.

I think I’m brought off the fence, anyway, by SB’s role as Katastrophe now being apparent, making this essentially a no-merit-random dice-roll between everyone except SB, which seems unjust. So against but with an interested eye on the arguments.

Kevan: he/him

07-01-2023 18:05:59 UTC

Happy to withdraw this one, I hadn’t anticipated the latest Consequences and thought we’d have a few more turns on the clock. The proposal was raised to see if it would draw out a particular reaction from a specific other player (f9d9d09169fcc2543ce9644776a3aac3), which is redundant now.


A formal endgame window where proposals cease and we play it out is definitely worth a discussion some time.

Raven1207: he/they

08-01-2023 17:26:06 UTC