BlogNomic: The Ninth Dynasty of ais523

I don’t expect you to abuse it, but I think this makes it legal for you to sling [Anonymous] into the title of any proposal and thus completely disregard the limits for your own sake.

@Josh: It doesn’t, the ability to disregard the limit only exists for a “proposal submitted this way”.

The weirdness is that if I put [Anonymous] into the title of a proposal that wasn’t submitted by someone else, it still counts against the limit but the other players have no way to check that, so it would potentially allow me to create a proposal that was illegal (and thus unable to change the ruleset) but that nobody else could tell was illegal. I’d get no benefit from doing that, though (and am generally very opposed to doing things that make it hard to determine what the ruleset is).

‘This way’ is vague, though; it can be interpreted as referring to the tag rather than the submission route.

I don’t think so – that interpretation would refer to “submit it” but with no referent for “it”.

God, this again.

I will vote against this under the current wording, do with that as you will. Ok?

I’ve tried to clarify.

In general, though, I think the recent tendency to add extra wording to block things that were already blocked by the rules is harmful – it a) makes the rules harder to read and b) is probably more likely to open up scams than close them (e.g. look at what happened at the end of last dynasty).

I guess part of the issue is that many BlogNomic players don’t have English as a first language, and therefore the meaning of a rule might not be entirely clear to them even if the English wording is unambiguous – but I don’t know what the correct way to solve that problem is.

I agree that more words is generally harmful. I think there is a nearer way around this specific issue - changing “this way” to “from an Anonymous Proposal submission” would do it.

I think that might be less clear – I’m not sure “from” has the right meaning. (In any case, it’s probably for the best to ban me from bluffing anonymous proposals – even though I wouldn’t do that it’s useful for other Seekers to know that I can’t do that.)

I think the proposal-writing bottleneck for the active players who aren’t very confident in proposal-writing is mostly a psychological one. It can hurt a lot to have a proposal you spent a lot of time on shot down, especially when it happens many times in a row, the other players seem to be able to get proposals passed very easily, and you can’t really effectively argue with their given reasons because the average 10+-year-veteran BlogNomic player is incredibly persuasive. I don’t expect this to help point (a) very much for that reason, and will probably be against just because it gives active players an additional slot a week

Honestly, the best way to get players confident in proposal-writing is to let them keep trying on their own and encourage them to ask for more feedback if they don’t understand why they are not successful. We could consider a longer-term Mentorship program if newer players still find this process scary.

Heck, even those of us who have some experience at proposal-writing still get it wrong and still can have plenty of rejected proposals. I know I’ve learned it’s best just to try ideas and throw them at the collective wall to see if they stick or not.

As far as the Influence issue goes, I think there’s general resistance to the idea anyway, so unless such a mechanic actually gets enacted, I don’t see a need to have the cart before the horse.

At least my solution to the psychological problem is that, for most of the proposals I propose, I don’t really care whether they get enacted or not (in fact, I’ve been known to write proposals that I actively want to be voted down).

AGAINST-leaning