As I said on the Discord, I think I’ll have to be against any proposal that makes a flat reveal of previously-hidden information, on general Preservationist Emperor principles to “be fair to all players” (aside from actions relating to the puzzle in question, this may also reveal unrelated secrets which players weren’t expecting to see daylight).

If a subgroup of players are at a point where they think they’ve deduced that either I must have interpreted a rule in an unexpected way, or not every player acted in the way they said that they would, we can hopefully clarify the former by having the group asking me how I’d process particular situations. I’m unconvinced that we “need a full reveal of everyone’s Routes, Prep, and Skills/Flaws to know for sure” that the Break-In was processed correctly.

(For the benefit of players not on the Discord, and for the historical record, I’ve confirmed - after Clucky asked me if this was the case - that I took “has an Extra Spot that is Connected to it” to mean that a single Extra Spot can be applied multiple times across an Agent’s route. That an Agent with a route of AAAAAAAAAAAA with B as an Extra Spot on the first A would - under a literal reading - have that Extra Spot apply to all twelve steps of their Route.)

rather than a veto, at least for now. I suppose there could be room to turn this around if every player contacted me privately in the next 23 hours saying they were happy for their information to be revealed.

because everything that I wanted to keep secret is, AFAICT, public knowledge, and I’m generally in favour of having this sort of information in the open because it makes the dynasty more interesting.

(Or to put it another way – I agree with Kevan’s opposition to the stated reasoning for the proposal, but would generally be in favour of this sort of change regardless, and am voting for it on that basis.)

Incidentally, I disagree with the assertion that we’re “close to the end of the dynasty” – with “Acceleration” and “The Two-dynastic Scoreboard” currently failing, and “A More Meaningful Round of Play” currently passing, we can expect a lot of disorganised rounds in which not much interesting happens (because it’s hard to achieve the new victory condition without help from a teammate, but the rules give no incentive for the teammates to help, meaning that the victory condition is unlikely to be achieved at all).

I don’t think I’ve lied about any of the Routes I’ve submitted, other than potentially a last-second step off of T that I’m unsure if I informed my team members about. However, I think betrayal is a fun part of this Dynasty, and should be encouraged. If your betrayal is immediately revealed, then it’ll be immediately punished, so players will be less inclined to lie. Betrayal is good, so I am this proposal.

@doomedideas the problem is that we know Kevan has been interpreting the rules in some interesting ways that run counter to other people’s interpretation of the rules. This has caused the game to turn from one of deception to one of trying to parse how Kevan might possibly be interpreting the rules in order to account for the observed results and means its hard to use CfJs to align the gamestate to its proper form because we don’t actually know what was supposed to happen even if we agree Kevan got a rule wrong

FWIW I’m pretty sure that Kevan interpreted the behaviour of Extra Spots correctly (the relevant rules reached their current state when a CFJ based on the old Extra Spots wording enacted, and the CFJ thus restored the old Extra Spots behaviour).

he 100% got it wrong

either “Extra Spot that is Connected to it” is not effected by the “at that position in that Agent’s Route” clause in which case the mere fact that someone somewhere has an extra spot connected to the spot in question—which isn’t what we’ve observed from routes in the past

or it is effected by the “at that position in that Agent’s Route” clause, in which case he also got it wrong

doesn’t seem to be any possible wording that where it applies only to that agent’s extra spots, but in any of that agent’s positions

only question that remains—does it matter or did JonathanDark/qenya/darknight do something else that would’ve resulted in darknight being encountered anyways

@Clucky: “the mere fact that someone somewhere has an extra spot connected to the spot in question” is enough, and you haven’t observed it before because it was a recent rule change (“Connect the Dots”, enacted 1 May 2025, more recently than any but the most recent Break-In).

It is maybe not surprising that a CFJ written by a Guard would turn out to be massively Guard-sided. (I don’t know whether or not JonathanDark set that up intentionally – but I noticed and said nothing, because it benefited me. I was planning to reveal it the next time I became a Burglar, but it looks like it’s been publicly revealed already.)

except that doesn’t line up with the spottings people received, nor with how Kevan claims to have interpreted the rule