Monday, February 22, 2021

Proposal: What We Do In The Shadows

Enacted popular, 6-1. Josh

Adminned at 23 Feb 2021 09:56:15 UTC

Set the special case rule Imperial Deferentials to active.

Add the following to the end of the second paragraph of the rule The Elective Monarchy:

Political Power may be gifted or traded freely.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, called Ethics of the Nobility:

No Elector is under any obligation to uphold any promise made in public or in private at any time.

Each Elector has a value for Mistrust, which is an integer that is publicly tracked and which defaults to zero. A positive value for Mistrust denotes an aggregate lack of trust, while a negative value for mistrust denotes the opposite.

At any time, any Elector may send the Doge a Rumour by private message, outlining an offence that has been carried out against them (where an offence is a betrayal, a breach of trust, a broken promise, or similar) and naming the Elector who carried it out. The Doge must then, at their earliest opportunity, post it to the blog as a Rumour Post (in the story post category), anonymising the names of the originator of the Rumour and its subject but including them as a sha256 hash.

Each Elector may then make a Response, where a Response must comprise of both of the following elements: a public statement (made in a comment to the Rumour Post) setting out briefly what their response to the Rumour will be, and a private message to the Doge giving a Mistrust score change between -1 and 2, inclusive.

At any time, the two Electors with the highest Mistrust are Candidates; their Political Heft is always considered to be zero.

Add the following to the end of the rule The Masquerade:

They should also disclose for each Elector the net change in their Mistrust that has accrued over the week, and then enact that change in gamestate tracking.

Comments

pokes:

22-02-2021 12:51:32 UTC

“a private message to the Doge giving a Mistrust score change between -1 and 2, inclusive.”

Whose Mistrust is changed by this?

“their Political Heft is always considered to be zero.”

It’d be more interesting if it made Political Power zero instead of Heft, since it lowers the DoV bar a little dangerously.

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

22-02-2021 13:03:35 UTC

Oh, arg, I forgot a bit. Well outside of edit range now alas.

Mistrust should accrue to the subject of the Rumour.

I’d still recommend passing this and patching it, but thanks for spotting that.

pokes:

22-02-2021 13:05:50 UTC

for

Kevan: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 13:17:11 UTC

for

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

22-02-2021 13:19:53 UTC

Another needed change: “the two Electors with the highest Mistrust” needs a tiebreaker.

Clucky: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 14:32:32 UTC

“anonymising the names of the originator of the Rumour and its subject but including them as a sha256 hash.”

a bit unclear what that means. Is there room for Josh to add other stuff to the hash so it isn’t super easy to reverse them?

Brendan: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 14:43:20 UTC

against  Because “traded freely” doesn’t seem to necessitate that both sides agree to the terms of a trade?

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

22-02-2021 14:57:30 UTC

Hmm, I assumed that trading would be defined in the attic but it doesn’t seem to be; I think in practice a unilateral swap would be perceived as not following the plain-language meaning of the word “trade” but would be up for an appendix-defined keyword going in to prevent this kind of shenanigan

Darknight: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 15:29:48 UTC

imperial

Clucky: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 15:42:29 UTC

The other problem with “Political Power may be gifted or traded freely.” is that, while I think a trade does imply both parties consenting, it doesn’t imply Josh being informed about the trade. So I think we do need more rules buttoning that down.

Overall, lots of good ideas here but think better to fix first, rather than pass and fix later.

against

Brendan: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 22:11:14 UTC

for CoV

Raven1207: HE/HIM

23-02-2021 05:36:04 UTC

for