Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Proposal: The Death of Death Itself

Timed out 5 vote to 3. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 18 Feb 2010 04:53:14 UTC

Replace the second paragraph of rule 2.4 with the following:

If there are ever fewer than two Detectives, the Executor may privately generate a random number between 1 and 5. If the number is between 1 and 4, the Executor may privately select a random player (from those who are neither Murderers nor Detectives) and privately email them with an offer to make them into a Detective. If they accept, and if the Executor honours their acceptance, then they become a Detective.

If there are ever fewer than two Murderers, then the Executor may privately generate a random number between 1 and 3. If that number is between 1 and 2, then the Executor may privately select a random player (from those who are neither Murderers nor Detectives) and privately email them with an offer to make them into a Murderer. If they accept, and if the Executor honours their acceptance, then they become a Murderer.

If 50% or more of EVCs to this Proposal contain the phrase “Insight is immortal”, then only the second paragraph of this Proposal is added to the Ruleset.

Similar to Darth’s suggestion in the comments to http://blognomic.com/archive/jobs_for_life/.

Comments

Roujo: he/him

16-02-2010 14:38:23 UTC

for

Klisz:

16-02-2010 15:12:51 UTC

for

Anonyman:

16-02-2010 19:18:29 UTC

Oops, I meant to say ‘The second paragraph of the proposed text’ for the EVC clause. Then again, the clause looks like failing anyway.
for, sans EVC clause.

Uvthenfuv:

16-02-2010 20:12:39 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

16-02-2010 20:44:18 UTC

for

Nausved:

16-02-2010 21:20:00 UTC

How often may the Executor do so?

Keba:

16-02-2010 21:28:08 UTC

against

“If there are ever fewer than two Detectives, the Executor may privately generate a random number between 1 and 5. If the number is between 1 and 4,”


.. and if the number is 5, the Executer need to generate a rondom number again, because there are <2 Detectives then. This could be interpretated recursively.

Darknight: he/him

16-02-2010 22:11:53 UTC

imperial

Anonyman:

16-02-2010 22:21:30 UTC

Keba: note the word ‘may’. The decision is optional, and presumably Kevan would interpret it as intended.

digibomber:

17-02-2010 07:22:33 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

17-02-2010 09:18:22 UTC

against Effectively, this changes nothing. Kevan could still choose not to replace detectives and murderers, or roll until he does.

Kevan: he/him

17-02-2010 09:40:11 UTC

I would take this in the intended spirit of “roll once within a short while of a Detective or Murderer disappearing”, until a proposal told me not to.

Qwazukee:

17-02-2010 21:07:53 UTC

imperial