Saturday, December 15, 2012

Proposal: Watch Your Back

Cannot be enacted without CoV. Final vote 1-9. Failed by Klisz.

Adminned at 16 Dec 2012 19:29:41 UTC

Enact a new rule ‘Philosophical Realignment’:

If the Auspex has a Private Message from a Believer (the Usurper) in a Cult (the Fiefdom), and all the following requirements are met:
* The Usurper is not the Leader of a Cult with the same Headquarters as the Fiefdom,
* The Usurper is a member of the Fiefdom,
* The Usurper’s Location was the Fiefdom’s Headquarters at the time the Private Message was sent,
* The Location of the Fiefdom’s Leader was not the Fiefdom’s Headquarters at the time the Private Message was sent,
* The Private Message indicates that the Usurper believes that the Leader of the Fiefdom has violated a Secret Requirement of the Fiefdom, and
* The Auspex agrees that the Secret Requirement was violated by the Leader in that manner,
* The Private Message was sent within 48 hours of the violation.
then the Auspex may delete the Private Message and change the Leader of the Fiefdom to the Usurper. When he does so, the former Leader is removed from the Fiefdom, and the former Leader and all members of the Cult are to be informed that the Usurper has assumed leadership of the Cult.

Add “No action taken before a member is made aware of a Secret Requirement should be considered a violation of that Secret Requirement.” to the end of the second paragraph of the rule “Secret Orders”

 

Provide incentive for leaders to tow the line, and provide a way for a Believer to amass power by controlling multiple Cults. The Leader can spend two days camping in the HQ to avoid this—-a privilege of power.

The bit about no retroactive Secret Requirements is to avoid using them to simply kick people out based on things they did earlier in the dynasty, or even in previous dynasties.

Comments

Sphinx:

15-12-2012 21:47:49 UTC

for

Josh: Announcer he/him

15-12-2012 22:25:34 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

15-12-2012 22:45:30 UTC

against “Before a member is made aware of a Secret Requirement” is sketchy (am I still “made aware” of something if I delete the PM without reading it?), and does not stop the “simply kick people out” issue you express concern about. (It would, as I read it, be trivial to create a Secret Requirement of “cannot have an ‘H’ in their name on the 16th of December” or - more simply - “cannot be on the Leader’s Naughty List, which is a private document which the Leader may update at any time”.)

quirck: he/him

15-12-2012 22:59:59 UTC

imperial

Sphinx:

15-12-2012 23:09:30 UTC

Well, thats true, but I do like the usurping system

Kevan: he/him

15-12-2012 23:14:30 UTC

The usurping seems fine, but Nomic players are naturally sceptical of tacked on “oh, and I’ll just fix this unrelated thing” clauses, and this one seems a little odd.

Klisz:

15-12-2012 23:16:07 UTC

imperial

Cpt_Koen:

16-12-2012 01:28:36 UTC

for Not sure what clause you’re talking about, Kevan.
(Also not sure where the two days limit comes from in “The Leader can spend two days camping in the HQ to avoid this—-a privilege of power.”)

scshunt:

16-12-2012 03:30:47 UTC

Cpt: They can violate a rule but camp in their HQ to prevent usurpation, since they can only be usurped if they are away from HQ.

Cpt_Koen:

16-12-2012 04:19:16 UTC

Oh, right. For a moment I thought you were implying Cult Leaders wasn’t allowed to stay longer than two days in their headquarters.

Kevan: he/him

16-12-2012 10:14:54 UTC

[Koen] The final sentence of the proposal is an unrelated change to add “No action taken before a member is made aware of a Secret Requirement”, ostensibly to fix the issue of being able to “kick people out based on things they did earlier in the dynasty”.

Sphinx:

16-12-2012 11:58:41 UTC

against, per Kevan

RaichuKFM: she/her

16-12-2012 13:25:53 UTC

against per Kevan.

Cpt_Koen:

16-12-2012 16:49:01 UTC

Ooooooh right. I’m very slow sometimes. Not enough for me to vote against though. Actually, I’m more curious about why “The Usurper is not the Leader of a Cult with the same Headquarters as the Fiefdom,”.

Igthorn:

16-12-2012 17:49:24 UTC

imperial

Argon14:

16-12-2012 20:15:53 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

16-12-2012 20:17:03 UTC

Kevan: I’ll repropose as two separate proposals if you like, but honestly, I don’t see the point. I forget why I put them in the same proposal, but I had a good reason at the time. I think.

Kevan: he/him

16-12-2012 20:37:12 UTC

Up to you. In retrospect I was probably voting as a Player more than an Emperor there, but that did look a lot like a way to sneakily nullify all Secret Requirements.

scshunt:

16-12-2012 20:46:12 UTC

Nope, it was an honest attempt to close what I perceived as a loophole.

Cpt_Koen:

17-12-2012 02:03:26 UTC

imperial Whatever