Well, as I noticed myself this time round: we haven't really formalised the umpiring process to an extreme degree.
That is:
- The information that is given out and retained isn't strictly and absolutely defined
- I was quite liberal in my deployment of 'armistaces' where I simply disallowed kills in certain zones due to, say, inconvienience for a party (as in "Woohoo! A party!") and to avoid annoying people with too much assassins talk.
- In this manner, the next Umpire (and the next, and the next and the nex) should likely decide on the strategy they use to both pick and assign targets based upon what information they have.
This last point is made immensely easier if the Umpire lays down, to begin with, that you are simply not allowed to kill people who are in the same zone as you in that zone. This would require aligning everyone's 'zones' correctly, but largely once you get a target it's a 'one thought' thing: "Ah, they're in my house, I can't kill them in our house, the Umpire says so"
Perhaps it would be quite finicky (ie trick) to work with properly, but in the end I suspect it is easier than, say, picking out individual targets by hand (or even engineering and monitoring an automated system).
The thinking is largely on the basis of the aforementioned armistace between Pegasus, Glugger and Orson being largely unenforceable. When in a Hall of Residence or similar styled building it is perhaps not possible to come to an agreement with everyone playing in the hall...because you might not know them!
An amusing alternative is to simply invoke a full TRUST NO ONE feel, and encourage people not to even shower without a weapon...
[hr]
"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."