Sunday, February 21, 2021

Proposal: Welcome to Favortown

Cannot be enacted without someone changing their vote. 3-5 against. Josh

Adminned at 23 Feb 2021 09:50:40 UTC

Add a new rule titled “Scheming”:

Each Elector has a publicly tracked Unsavoriness, which is a non-negative integer defaulting to 0.

As a daily action, an Elector (the “Schemer”) may make a Scheming Request by privately messaging the Doge the full description of the request. At any time, the Doge may process the oldest unprocessed Scheming Request they have received, apply its effects (rolling any necessary dice privately), and reply to the Schemer that they have done so.

The available types of Scheming Requests are:
- An Aggrandizing Request. This must name an Elector, possibly the Schemer, and an amount of Unsavoriness that is at least 12. When the Doge processes this request, the named Elector’s Political Power increases by 1, and the Schemer’s Unsavoriness is increased by the specified amount.
- An Undermining Request. This must name an Elector, and an amount of Unsavoriness that is at least 15. When the Doge processes this request, the named Elector’s Political Power decreases by 3, and the Schemer’s Unsavoriness is increased by the specified amount.

Comments

Jumble:

21-02-2021 18:11:57 UTC

Why is Undermining more powerful than Aggrandizing?

pokes:

21-02-2021 18:20:29 UTC

I’m amenable to changing the numbers, but as I saw it writing it, if Undermining were -1, then there’s no reason to do it because Aggrandizing yourself once is almost equivalent to Undermining (number of players - 1) times.

Clucky: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 18:22:15 UTC

I’m a bit worried that currently Unsavoriness doesn’t do anything. Which might make it harder to add bad effects to later, because people with high Unsavoriness would feel differently about what the negative effects should be than people with low Unsavoriness

pokes:

21-02-2021 18:23:23 UTC

(Edited the unsavoriness increase from 1 to 10DICE2, to enable other higher or lower cost schemes that are not fully distinguishable to observers.)

Clucky: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 18:25:27 UTC

10DICE2 is awfully swingy.

pokes:

21-02-2021 18:28:07 UTC

Is it? The majority of the time, the result is 14, 15, or 16.

pokes:

21-02-2021 18:29:56 UTC

I changed it to just 15. There’s a fundamental tension there where more swinginess is necessary to make later types of schemes indistinguishable, but is also… swingy.

pokes:

21-02-2021 18:59:47 UTC

OK, one more edit. I think I have a better solution: a minimum Unsavoriness cost that can be exceeded if you want to disguise a request as something else.

Brendan: HE/HIM

21-02-2021 21:33:23 UTC

against  I very nearly voted for this on the basis of the title alone, but I think with no consequences for Unsavoriness, it’s too grindy right now.

Jumble:

21-02-2021 21:49:38 UTC

against

pokes:

21-02-2021 23:13:51 UTC

It’s true that there’s no downside literally right now but I imagine we would institute one soon if unsavorinesses were increasing.

Jumble:

22-02-2021 00:45:15 UTC

but that’s going to be a bampam and does anyone really want to do that

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

22-02-2021 09:38:47 UTC

imperial I do like the fuzziness of the currency - the thing where you can arbitrarily increase your accretion of unsavouriness to hide what you’re doing - but agree that this probably needs to come in as a complete mechanic, or at least a consequential one, or run the risk of being never plugged in.

Kevan: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 10:02:30 UTC

for

Darknight: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 15:24:53 UTC

imperial

Vovix: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 17:42:46 UTC

against

Clucky: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 18:17:36 UTC

for

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

23-02-2021 09:49:11 UTC

against To clear the queue, and in favour of the version described by DDeD.