Wednesday, January 04, 2023

Proposal: The Mark of Katastrophe

Timed out 6 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 06 Jan 2023 10:12:53 UTC

In “Explorer Actions”, replace “holds at least three Fragments and is not possessed by Katastrophe” with:-

holds at least three Fragments and is Pure of Heart

Then add to that paragraph:-

An Explorer who is not possessed by Katastrophe is Pure of Heart if they have either never been possessed by Katastrophe or are holding a Blessed Item. An Explorer who is possessed by Katastrophe is not Pure of Heart.


Josh: he/they

04-01-2023 09:57:05 UTC

Just to be clear, here: are we absolutely collectively certain that pre-existing items, during the brief window when they could have properties but didn’t, didn’t quietly default to the alphabetically first property they could have i.e. Blessed?

SingularByte: he/him

04-01-2023 10:14:25 UTC

Okay, I’ve done a bit of digging.

First proposal was nethacking, which stated that items “defaulted at Untested.”
Tidying up BUC Status then changed that to: “Items are objects that can be held by an Explorer. Items have a name and zero or more Properties.”

There are two possible results of this:
1. The illegal “Untested” property would be lost, and the default would thus become zero properties.
2. The Untested property has been retained as there is no reason why it *can’t* be a property. This would not change the Cursed, Blessed or Uncursed property and its sole effect would be to permit the usage of scrolls on the item (which are otherwise broken). This scroll doesn’t seem to actually grant properties as such however, so it’s still broken but just in a different way.

At no point would the items gain the Blessed property.

SingularByte: he/him

04-01-2023 10:22:22 UTC

Also, just to be a little more scam-proof, there might want to be a clause to say that someone who is currently possessed is not pure of heart. It might be overly cautious though, since that is implied.

Kevan: he/him

04-01-2023 10:27:44 UTC

See what I mean about endgame caution? Clause added.

Josh: he/they

04-01-2023 10:34:22 UTC

Yes, I do see what you mean about endgame caution :)

Josh: he/they

04-01-2023 14:30:36 UTC


SingularByte: he/him

04-01-2023 14:48:30 UTC


quirck: he/him

04-01-2023 16:10:57 UTC



04-01-2023 18:43:21 UTC


Janet: she/her

04-01-2023 19:03:15 UTC


Darknight: he/him

04-01-2023 21:05:11 UTC



05-01-2023 23:17:23 UTC


Trapdoorspyder: he/him

06-01-2023 00:19:06 UTC