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:
Why is Undermining more powerful than Aggrandizing?
pokes:
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
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:
(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
10DICE2 is awfully swingy.
pokes:
Is it? The majority of the time, the result is 14, 15, or 16.
pokes:
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:
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
Jumble:
pokes:
It’s true that there’s no downside literally right now but I imagine we would institute one soon if unsavorinesses were increasing.
Jumble:
but that’s going to be a bampam and does anyone really want to do that
Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM
Kevan: HE/HIM
Darknight: HE/HIM
Vovix: HE/HIM
Clucky: HE/HIM
Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM