Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Proposal: Separating core and dynastic proposal slots

Times out 7-6 and is Enacted. - lilomar

Adminned at 06 Aug 2010 14:57:37 UTC

Change the first paragraph of rule 1.3 “Proposals” from

Any Citizen may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry (http://blognomic.com/update/index.php?C=publish) in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes (unless the Citizen already has 2 Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day).

to

Any Citizen may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry (http://blognomic.com/update/index.php?C=publish) in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes, except that:

  • A Citizen cannot submit a Core Proposal if they already have two Core Proposals pending, or one Core and at least one non-Core Proposal pending.
  • A Citizen cannot submit a non-Core Proposal if they already have two Core Proposals pending, or they already have two non-Core Proposals pending.
  • A Citizen cannot submit any Proposal if they have already submitted 3 Proposals that day.

In rule 3.1 “Keywords”, add the following definition:

Core Proposal

a Proposal whose only changes are the creation, deletion, and/or amendment of core rules and/or the glossary, and/or to make a Citizen an Admin, to remove a Citizen’s Admin status, and/or to ban a Citizen.

Adding a definition that may be helpful for rules that mess with voting mechanics (so that core proposals vs. dynastic proposals are separated), and loosening the slot system slightly: now you can have two non-core proposals and one core proposal at a time, or else two core proposals. This should hopefully get rid of the issue where people are unwilling to use slots for core proposals because they want to make dynastic proposals (this came up in IRC discussion), and better helps the separation of dynasty and core in the vast majority of dynasties that want it. (In the others, a dynastic rule can temporarily override this.) Changing core rules, glossary, adminship, and banning seems to cover the list of non-dynastic activities; can anyone think of anything else?

Comments

lilomar:

08-04-2010 15:08:39 UTC

for  for

Keba:

08-04-2010 15:13:24 UTC

for although I would prefer the Glossary without the “only” in “a Proposal whose only changes are the creation, deletion, and/or amendment of core rules and/or the glossary, and/or to make a Citizen an Admin, to remove a Citizen’s Admin status, and/or to ban a Citizen.”

Kevan:

08-04-2010 15:27:08 UTC

against Seems a bit too much load for new players, when we don’t really touch the core rules that often. And being able to squeeze an extra “enact a core rule which then makes itself into a dynastic rule” proposal into the queue is perhaps a little too tempting.

I think there’s usually a fairly clean split between players who are playing the game and changing the dynastic rules, and lurkers who aren’t really playing but are fixing some core rules while they’re around.

ais523:

08-04-2010 15:33:29 UTC

I’m thinking of the times immediately after a core rules disaster (it happens about once a dynasty, maybe a bit more often), when people are torn between fixing the loophole and getting on with dynastic play. There’s not much of a reason to have interference there.

Likewise, lilomar asked me to propose an ABSTAIN vote earlier today, because he wanted to save his slots for dynastic proposals. That’s what directly inspired this proposal.

I think part of the reason why there tends to be a split between core and dynastic proposers is that the rules don’t really let you do anything else. (That said, my last proposal, a couple of days ago, was dynastic.)

Qwazukee:

08-04-2010 15:45:25 UTC

against Two Proposals at a time is enough. If there is a core rules disaster, someone will fix it. And Kevan is right: stuff like this reduces game accessibility for new Citizens.

ais523:

08-04-2010 15:50:40 UTC

And the huge complexity of the typical dynastic ruleset doesn’t?

Qwazukee:

08-04-2010 15:51:21 UTC

Not at the beginning of a Dynasty, no.

Kevan:

08-04-2010 16:00:55 UTC

Even without the gentle loopholing to get extra Dynastic proposals through, I’m not sure it’s good to give everyone a permanent extra proposal slot which they can only use to tinker with the Core ruleset. With two generic slots, the message is “a normal player submits one proposal per day”; with this, it’s “a normal player makes two changes to the dynastic rules and one to the core, every two days”.

How about letting the Emperor make unlimited Core-only proposals, as part of his job?

lilomar:

08-04-2010 16:07:13 UTC

Even if this fails due to not wanting to allow the extra slots, I think the Core Proposal definition is still a Good Thing(tm), as it makes mechanics like treason easier to implement.

lilomar:

08-04-2010 16:17:37 UTC

[Kevan] I think a better solution would be to allow extra dynastic-only proposals for the emperor, as that is really their job (making sure the dynasty goes smoothly), as I see it.

I thought of another use for the Core-Proposal definition. DEF votes don’t count on them. Because when it comes to the Core-Rules, the Emperor should be just another player.

ais523:

08-04-2010 16:48:54 UTC

Nothing’s forcing people to use up their slots; I can’t think of anyone who normally submits one proposal per day. (More commonly, people propose in pairs.)

Bucky:

08-04-2010 17:48:36 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

08-04-2010 18:13:51 UTC

I think that allowing the Emperor to make unlimited Core-Rule Proposals is a terrible idea, for a couple of reasons.

1. Controversial Core Rules such as Procedural Veto or Anonymous CfJ could oscillate between Dynasties… whatever the Emperor suggested could become the “Flavor of the Day,” depending on whim. As someone who believes the Core Rules should be relatively stable, I oppose this.

2. The inclusion of such a rule implies, especially to new Players, that “whatever the Emperor suggests, goes.” Since this is an attitude we would be loathe to adapt (we’ve had many Emperors with at least a few radical ideas for the Core Rules), I don’t think we should put it out there.

scshunt:

08-04-2010 18:33:40 UTC

for

spikebrennan:

08-04-2010 20:20:18 UTC

against
largely because the existence of the rule might tempt people into trying to tinker with the core rules more often than is really appropriate.

I’m interested in exploring the idea of relaxing the proposal slots limit on the Emperor—I protosaled something like this a few months back but it didn’t go anywhere.

Keba:

08-04-2010 21:09:48 UTC

Strange, I vote for for the same reason spikebrennan votes against. The core Rules should not be the same for the following years.

Purplebeard:

08-04-2010 21:14:01 UTC

against

Ienpw III:

08-04-2010 23:49:56 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

08-05-2010 00:06:25 UTC

Per Keba. Also, because there’re core rules proposals I want to make right now, but I’m being discouraged from making them.

Darknight:

08-05-2010 00:07:24 UTC

against

flurie:

08-05-2010 01:17:44 UTC

for

glopso:

08-05-2010 04:11:16 UTC

for

Kevan:

08-05-2010 11:12:28 UTC

[ais523] The fact that the extra slot exists suggests that it’s normal and acceptable for a third of proposals to be Core Rule changes, just as it’s currently normal and acceptable for each player to make two proposals every 48 hours. (I only said “one per day” as an average; if anything, the two-at-once shows that proposals already expand to fill the slots available.)

I don’t really know what the consensus is, but since the third or fourth dynasty, I’ve seen BlogNomic as being a series of self-contained dynastic games played within a solid core framework, by whoever happens to be active at the time. It always seems a bit disappointing and unfair when someone pulls a scam that relies on a careless core rule change from two or three dynasties previously.

Ienpw III:

08-05-2010 19:41:46 UTC

I am of the opinion that the core framework should be changed. What’s wrong with adding new core mechanics? This is supposed to be a nomic, after all, and if all we really ever change is the dynastic rules, then I don’t really think it should be called one.

Qwazukee:

08-05-2010 19:57:27 UTC

If new core mechanics make the game BETTER, then they should be added. I see the Core Rules as being a work in progress, moving towards an always-unreachable set of perfect rules. But this is pretty clearly a step in the wrong direction, imho. Nobody really needs 3 Proposals, especially if they’re just tinkering about with rules which have served this nomic well for years.

Kevan:

08-06-2010 09:43:54 UTC

[Ienpw] Obviously nobody is suggesting that we stop being allowed to modify the core rules. I just think the extra slot is going to create more trouble than it fixes.