It was pointed out to me that Invis has a much higher EM than Walking 
Unseen so it should be a harder nut to crack with Witchsight - which also 
explains the exception in the current writeup. With this in mind, here is 
my revised idea to get around witchsight seeing everything.

1) Against Walking Unseen/Blending. If the Rank of Witchsight is greater 
than or equal to the Rank in Walking Unseen, then the target can be seen 
with a slight blue sheen. If the Rank of Witchsight is less than the Rank 
in Walking Unseen then nothing is seen.

2) Against Invisibility. If the Rank of Witchsight is >= twice the rank of 
Invisibility then the target can be seen otherwise nothing is seen. This is 
modified by 1 for each point of perception above 15 (10 for the Celestial 
spell) that the viewer has. For example, someone with Rank 10 Witchsight 
can see up to and including Rank 5 Invisibility. But if they have a 
perception of 18 they can see up to Rank 8, if using a talent, and Rank 13 
if using the spell.

This should give motivation for ranking both the spell and perception. A 
similar perception modifier could be added to the Walking Unseen/Blending 
case but I felt it might make things too easy.

Comments?

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)






-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

We didn't get a quorum so not much was done. However, many people have 
indicated that work is being progressed on various topices which should be 
ready by the December meeting. Therefore it is hoped that we should be able 
to get a quorum and a full agenda there.

Was anyone planning on working on Astrologer? The comments on the list 
seemed to indicate it seriously needs a real good going over but I'm not 
sure if anyone picked up on it.

A while ago, it was suggested that voting could be done on the e-mail list. 
At that time there wasn't a clear mechanism for this but, by using a 
moderated list it could be done. The proposed mechanism is as follows.

A new, moderated, list called dq-vote is set up. Anyone can post to it but 
all the posts are sent to the moderator, usually the current meeting chair 
or the secretary or both. There is no bounce back to anyone on the list. 
When a vote is called, the moderator posts a message to dq stating what is 
to be voted on. Anyone who wishes to vote has to reply to dq-vote with 
their vote. There must be enough separate votes, one per e-mail address, 
that number to the current quorum or more to make the vote count valid. 
Once voting is closed, usually a week after the initial post, then the 
votes are counted and the results posted back to dq. This means that all 
voting is secret ballots.

Comments? Is this feasable?

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)



-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

I think the numbers work out OK. Would suggest simplification.

Witchsight Talent or Spell
Can see unseen of up to (Rank + PC over 15).
Can see invis/blending of up to (Rank/2 + PC over 15).

These two ranks can be written on character sheet by witchsight talent, so
never need to calculate. Bit more of a pain with the spell.

Keith's suggestion gets rid of the intermediate stage of "something is out
there" which is annoying/confusing a number of people. It makes invis
tougher than unseen to spot. It makes both tougher to spot than old rules or
current rules, so high-ranked spells will be useful against town guard even
with witchsight spells on (need PC 15 to catch rank 10 invis/rank 20 unseen,
PC 21 to catch rank 16 invis, with Rank 20 witchsight). Invis is more widely
usable beyond low/medium.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Smith [mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 6 November 2000 10:00 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 2


It was pointed out to me that Invis has a much higher EM than Walking 
Unseen so it should be a harder nut to crack with Witchsight - which also 
explains the exception in the current writeup. With this in mind, here is 
my revised idea to get around witchsight seeing everything.

1) Against Walking Unseen/Blending. If the Rank of Witchsight is greater 
than or equal to the Rank in Walking Unseen, then the target can be seen 
with a slight blue sheen. If the Rank of Witchsight is less than the Rank 
in Walking Unseen then nothing is seen.

2) Against Invisibility. If the Rank of Witchsight is >= twice the rank of 
Invisibility then the target can be seen otherwise nothing is seen. This is 
modified by 1 for each point of perception above 15 (10 for the Celestial 
spell) that the viewer has. For example, someone with Rank 10 Witchsight 
can see up to and including Rank 5 Invisibility. But if they have a 
perception of 18 they can see up to Rank 8, if using a talent, and Rank 13 
if using the spell.

This should give motivation for ranking both the spell and perception. A 
similar perception modifier could be added to the Walking Unseen/Blending 
case but I felt it might make things too easy.

Comments?

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)






-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --


-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

Problems with e-voting:
(1) face to face discussion often explains things better than email, with
more explanation of what people don't understand, and more "This doesn't
feel right because of this - what do you reckon?", and less flaming.

(2) email voting encourages the "wrong" sort of voting. Those who don't care
to make an effort to come along to the gods but want to insert their 2-cents
worth can. I'm not a 1-person, 1-vote believer. Those who care, listen to
opinions & put effort in COUNT MORE than others IMO. 

(3) Those ignorant of the issues can vote. A vote can be stacked more
easily, less obviously.

(4) The "consensus" voting that is sometimes used: "7 for, 2 against - OK,
what about it don't you two like? Can we address that?" is lost.

(5) Those without email or who can not / will not get DQ lists on their
email accounts would be disenfranchised.

Advantages:
(1) You would (probably) get a wider range of people voting, which is more
democratic, representitive, etc. Warm fuzzies, inclusion, etc.

(2) Those who can't make it to the Gods meetings (Church, children, other
Sunday commitments) can vote.

I think that while we can muster up quorums when there are things to vote on
(and there haven't been things to vote on lately), we shouldn't transfer to
e-voting.

If we did go to email voting, I would want the vote to be public - no secret
ballots.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----

A while ago, it was suggested that voting could be done on the e-mail list. 
At that time there wasn't a clear mechanism for this but, by using a 
moderated list it could be done. The proposed mechanism is as follows.

A new, moderated, list called dq-vote is set up. Anyone can post to it but 
all the posts are sent to the moderator, usually the current meeting chair 
or the secretary or both. There is no bounce back to anyone on the list. 
When a vote is called, the moderator posts a message to dq stating what is 
to be voted on. Anyone who wishes to vote has to reply to dq-vote with 
their vote. There must be enough separate votes, one per e-mail address, 
that number to the current quorum or more to make the vote count valid. 
Once voting is closed, usually a week after the initial post, then the 
votes are counted and the results posted back to dq. This means that all 
voting is secret ballots.

Comments? Is this feasable?

Keith


-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

> Problems with e-voting:
> (1) face to face discussion often explains things better than email, with
> more explanation of what people don't understand, and more "This doesn't
> feel right because of this - what do you reckon?", and less flaming.

I tend to think if people put in the effort to actually read posts and try
to see what people are saying  this would be less of a problem but until
people learn how to use the medium more effectivly this is an important
issue.

> (2) email voting encourages the "wrong" sort of voting. Those who
> don't care
> to make an effort to come along to the gods but want to insert
> their 2-cents
> worth can. I'm not a 1-person, 1-vote believer. Those who care, listen to
> opinions & put effort in COUNT MORE than others IMO.

Not nessecarily. It still takes effort to send the email, thiose who do not
care will not vote. Those who do go to the effort of voting must have a
reason even if it is simply to block change.

> (3) Those ignorant of the issues can vote. A vote can be stacked more
> easily, less obviously.

That has never stopped people voting at Gods meetings either :-)

> (4) The "consensus" voting that is sometimes used: "7 for, 2 against - OK,
> what about it don't you two like? Can we address that?" is lost.

Yes we can, while Keith recommended a secret ballot it is in effoect not one
as the email address is seen by those counting the vote. If the votes are
fully and publicly displayed with name and vote then healthy discussion can
begin. To assist in the fairness angle it would pay to have a majority that
must be acheved greater than 50% Ie around 70-75% mark.

> (5) Those without email or who can not / will not get DQ lists on their
> email accounts would be disenfranchised.

Those who do not go to the effort to get Email, is the same as those who do
not go to the effort to turn up. It is simply a restriction to a different
group. The advantages of the email over face to face is that the face to
face stuff is not getting enough people.


> Advantages:
> (1) You would (probably) get a wider range of people voting, which is more
> democratic, representitive, etc. Warm fuzzies, inclusion, etc.

An interesting point is do we restrict the voting in any way?

> (2) Those who can't make it to the Gods meetings (Church, children, other
> Sunday commitments) can vote.

As a busy person this is a major factor.

> I think that while we can muster up quorums when there are things
> to vote on (and there haven't been things to vote on lately), we shouldn't
> transfer to e-voting.

When was the last time a quorum was achieved? I would suggest that in recent
times the hit/miss ratio is less than 50% success.

> If we did go to email voting, I would want the vote to be public
> - no secret ballots.

Very definatly. I would like to see online voting even if it is just to
assist in judgeing the favour/disfavour various idea's have.

But secret Ballots are definatly a nono.

Mandos
/s



-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --