Order Only

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

This isn't a question but an observation.

Zorb's question about the strikethrough convention -- and the moderator's answer -- have made me think about the useful sorts of ambiguity this game has built in. We are told that the strikethrough (which is emerging as an ubiquitous device in this game) is to be read as a smudge which is often unreadable, but might sometimes be decipherable.

It seems to me that the "Order Only" spell is similarly open to uncertainty: we don't yet know that it works, or works uniformly, and even if it does work, it relies on a character's remembering to use it. Does it rely on exact wording? Dumbledore has already tested that proposition, but we don't know the result. [I mean that one possible explanation for Sirius' failure to find his contact in Nice is that the State is able to read all or some of the posts labeled "Order Only."]

Along these lines...

1. I would be surprised if it were Dumbledore who first fails to use the spell properly.
2. I wouldn't be surprised that the Protectorate might keep quiet about it if the spell isn't working ... what an opportunity for surveillance!
3. I don't doubt that Bill Weasley should be able to design an effective spell for this purpose, but I'd also believe that any such spell might require fine tuning and might have been used prematurely.
4. And I'm trying to be alert to the possibility that the spell works, but not equally well for every user.

Tangentially...

a. I'm watching to see whether it is really wise to have included Hermione in the Order filter: there is a lot of information being passed among McGonagall, Sirius, and Dumbledore that she is now burdened with keeping secret.

b. Sirius, at least, seems worried: he has suggested (twice, gently) that she ought not trust Lupin.

c. I would fully believe that a child in Hermione's circumstances might be manipulated into revealing information by someone who treats her kindly. I don't know that it will be Lupin who cracks her reserve, but it would be an interesting, persuasive, and wrenching story line if the game chooses to go that direction.

d. And, of course, it might not be the child who is the weak link at all. Sirius wonders if they have a leak/sneak within the Order. If so, who might it be? It would be nice to know who (played characters and un-cast characters) is on the Order Only journal filter.

Comments

[alt-player.livejournal.com]

On the "Order Only" lock: the way we're playing it is that if the "Order Only" lock is on the post itself to begin with, then all the comments below it are locked too, even if they're not specifically marked as such (rather like a friends-locked entry on LiveJournal). So Dumbledore's comment to Sirius is indeed protected since Sirius' post was locked, even if Dumbledore didn't specifically say "Order Only."

If someone wants to lock a comment as "Order Only" on an open (public) post, then "Order Only" must be put on each individual comment. An example would be here (http://alt-hermione.livejournal.com/2398.html): Hermione's post is public, but Sirius and Hermione exchange an "Order Only" comment thread.

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

Thanks for clarifying -- especially the fact that all comments are filtered if the poster remembers to mark the post itself as "Order Only."


I take it, though, that you are not ruling out the possibility that the filtering spell might have weaknesses (either in general or as cast by individual users or simply in the fact that a poster must remember to use it).

The last of those possibilities would seem really plausible as a way to write an information breach into the game -- I know I have sometimes forgotten to set an LJ f-lock when I've meant to. Even a short-duration open posting of the wrong information might be devastating to a resistance movement like the Order.

[alt-player.livejournal.com]

We're all quite conscious that we may slip up, believe me! We may institute something like the Nocturne Alley fifteen-minute rule: if we slip up (like forgetting the Order Only lock), then we have fifteen minutes to fix it (like by deleting a comment and reposting it) before a mistake becomes "in play" as an actual part of the game.

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

I actually had in mind that a player might make such a slip on purpose (the character would make it by accident).

Your response, though, points out how difficult it would be (at first) to tell player-mistake from character-mistake.

I'm sure we're all willing to give you latitude to fix player slips. -- Though, of course, we are like as not to be confused by them. (The price of having readers hanging on your every word and obsessively hitting the refresh key!)

[alt-player.livejournal.com]

Re: deliberate slips: yes, we've discussed that, too.

You'll just have to watch the game and see!