Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Proposal: We Are Legion, Or Are We

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 20 Dec 2012 02:31:49 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Reporting:

Each Leader may chose a scale of exaggeration for their cult, which is a number between minus one and two, and which is reported to and privately tracked by the Auspex. If this rule has been in the ruleset for more than 48 hours, then any Cultist may remove this sentence and the word “not” wherever it appears in the sentence that follows it. The number of members in each Cult, modified by that Cult’s scale of exaggeration, is not tracked next to the Cults’ names in rule 2.1, and this number should not be updated by the Auspex whenever a Cult gains or loses a member. Cults have a scale of exaggeration of zero by default.

The Leader of a Cult may change their Cult’s scale of exaggeration as a weekly action.


RaichuKFM: she/her

18-12-2012 11:56:21 UTC



18-12-2012 13:30:25 UTC



18-12-2012 13:51:02 UTC



18-12-2012 14:24:46 UTC


quirck: he/him

18-12-2012 15:57:18 UTC

Who is Cultist? Modified in what way? Multiplication implied? against


18-12-2012 16:02:09 UTC


Josh: he/they

18-12-2012 16:38:47 UTC

@Quick - Cultist was an error for Believer, and I would take “modified” when referring to values that can be positive or negative to be added… But I know a turkey when I see one :) sk against


18-12-2012 16:55:38 UTC



18-12-2012 19:34:18 UTC



18-12-2012 22:23:42 UTC

against I haven’t read it entirely, but the “anyone may remove any not” is probably the most suspicious rule text I’ve seen since I’m here.

Josh: he/they

18-12-2012 22:28:36 UTC

Huh, really? Why?


18-12-2012 22:52:05 UTC

Well, arguably “wherever it appears” implies you can choose to remove either none, or one, or the other, or both of the ‘not’s in the next sentence, right?

Josh: he/they

18-12-2012 23:02:15 UTC

I don’t think that’s an interpretation I can see - I would interpret “wherever it appears” as being strictly identical to “everywhere it appears”.

I mean, it’s moot, obviously, but I may want to use the wording again some time so it seems worth making sure it’s clear…

RaichuKFM: she/her

18-12-2012 23:47:53 UTC

Seems clearly like everywhere to me.