Sunday, May 16, 2021

Proposal: The Liberation [Special Case]

Reached quorum 8 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 18 May 2021 08:48:19 UTC

Rewrite the Special Case rule No Collaboration [Active] [Rare] to read as follows:

If “Dynastic Distance” is also active, the Collector is not considered a Broker for the purposes of this rule. The Collector is always permitted to inform the Traitor of their role if the Special Case rule “The Traitor” is active.

Brokers may not privately communicate with each other about dynastic gameplay or votable matters that affect the dynastic ruleset or gamestate. Private communications are considered to be anything that any other Broker could not reasonably be privy to, perceive, or understand. Discussion conducted in plain English on the BlogNomic wiki and blog, and the #currentdynasty or #general channels of the BlogNomic slack, are not considered to be private communication. Idle Brokers (or people who are not yet Brokers) also face the same restrictions if they intend to become an active Broker during the course of the dynasty. The use of creative strategies to circumvent this rule may be considered to be a scam for the purposes of determining whether an infraction of Fair Play has taken place.

A mentor and mentee may still privately converse with each other, but should keep their conversations away from discussion specific gameplay strategy.

If information which was not allowed to be discussed is still privately discussed, the Brokers who were part of the conversation should make a post to the blog disclosing what information was discussed as their earliest convenience.

Scraping off a couple of barnacles; broader protection seems more likely to be effective than specific protection, here.

Comments

lemonfanta: SHE/HER

16-05-2021 11:47:26 UTC

does the phrasing of “exception” here imply that coded messages are allowed if they’re in a place like the #currentdynasty channel?

Josh: RICHARDO VON NESTOR HE/HIM

16-05-2021 12:15:54 UTC

Thanks, I made a tweak

Clucky: HE/HIM

16-05-2021 15:27:04 UTC

“The use of creative strategies to circumvent this rule may be considered to be a scam for the purposes of determining whether an infraction of Fair Play has taken place.”

I’m confused if this means “its a scam, not a fair play violation” or “it is a fair play violation”

Josh: RICHARDO VON NESTOR HE/HIM

16-05-2021 15:53:28 UTC

I’m not sure that I see the same ambiguity - “this is a scam” plus “A Broker should not use a… special case… rules scam” in Fair Play seems pretty declarative for me. What’s the opposite read?

Clucky: HE/HIM

16-05-2021 17:21:51 UTC

Got it, missed that rule covered special case rules.

for

Though we should probably fix “A Broker should not use a core, special case or appendix rules scam to directly or indirectly achieve victory.” to encompass helping others achieve victory as well.

Jason: HE/HIM

16-05-2021 18:45:17 UTC

for

Kevan: HE/HIM

16-05-2021 18:52:52 UTC

for

Changing “average Broker” to “any other Broker” seems a bit strong, but I guess “reasonably” drags that back to the average. (Someone publicly using an emoji I didn’t understand the significance of would fall under “private communications”, except that I could ask other players or a search engine what it generally meant.)

lemonfanta: SHE/HER

16-05-2021 21:59:39 UTC

for

Raven1207: HE/HIM

17-05-2021 00:00:14 UTC

for

SupernovaStarbright:

17-05-2021 00:57:09 UTC

for

pokes:

17-05-2021 16:47:31 UTC

for