Nah that ain’t it. Will be against the current text.

why?

what other sort of behavior do you think should be banned in this dynasty that this doesn’t cover?

I don’t see any point in being obtuse about this; the building block isn’t constrained to this dynasty and that’s a big part of the point.

But we are, for example, still sniffing around having idle players vote on photos, and we have aesthetic assessments, to even just for this dynasty that’s two things this doesn’t cover, let alone anything that may come up in future.

I think all the discussion around what does/doesn’t fall under the prevue of “no cooperation” shows that having a building block not constrained to the dynasty is going to be problematic.

When we have people arguing that voting for a CfJ that would help another player out violates “no cooperation”, plus explicit permission to vote against DOVs where you think someone violated the “no cooperation” rule… that to me feels like a recipe for a hairy endgame where someone wins and then people vote against it because a third player happened to point out that their scoring post was illegal and they should redo it.

So I think we need to make it clear what specific actions violate the no-cooperation rule

Currently we have no behavior idle seekers can perform. https://blognomic.com/archive/blognomic_idol is proposed, but it offers no reason for why idle seekers should vote on a proposal so feels challenging to put restrictions on how they can use the vote.

Just to be clear, “BlogNomic Idol” is regarding Idle Seekers voting on a Shot, not a Proposal. I’m fairly certain you didn’t mean to say “proposal” but I want to make it clear that we’re not offering Idle Seekers the ability to be involved in changes to dynastic rules.

right yeah sorry that is what I menat

@Clucky: also I see no need to repeal “No Cooperation”. You can have that Building Block and your proposed changes at the same time without conflict. I’d like to request that you remove the repeal instruction, otherwise I’ll likely vote against merely on self-interest in not sabotaging my own proposal.

but if the building block remains, it’ll still potentially get in the way of the endgame if someone tries to argue that a certain action was “cooperation”

“Get in the way” just sounds more like an irritation than a real problem. So what if a DoV isn’t a slam dunk? There’s no rush to enacting a DoV, even though historically most have been pretty quick. If there’s some disagreement, as long as we have methods to sort it out, I’m not seeing the problem.

I too am feeling the loose gooseness of it, but if we’re pivoting the dynasty to “players can cooperate, just don’t do these two things Clucky thought of”, we’d probably want to switch off Mantle Passing at the same time.

no pivot here

still waiting for people to explain what sort of actions people think shouldn’t be allowed that are not covered by this rule

I think we can ride that out and propose disallowals as we think of them, we just shouldn’t do it with Mantle Passing on the table to tempt people into easy mantle-rolling kingmaking plans. No Private Communication might help as well.

But what about the ones that don’t get proposed? Or the ones someone thinks of but keeps to themselves so they can pull it out at the end and be like “technically that was a form of cooperation now I’m allowed to vote against this DOV”?

[Clucky] You’re misreading me here - I mean that it would seem okay to enact this proposal and add further restrictions as we think of them. Just not under the shadow of mantle-passing, because that’s such an strong accelerant to cheap “I really need to get Conceptual Balance today to win, will give 25% of mantle to the first idle player who joins and posts a photo” cooperative play.

(Conceptually this proposal also needs a pass for consequences - what happens if somebody does share a criteria or make a request, or says something that sounds a lot like one? How do we play on from that? We’d perhaps want to beef up guessing instead, making these reveals into inherently bad moves, rather than something that isn’t allowed to happen.)

I always worry that posting consequences in the ruleset implicitly permits the action - it moves it from a prohibited action to an action with a cost, that may be accepted.

My gut feel on No Coops is that adding the “don’t vote on their DoVs” clause, while understandable, has actually weakened the provision. Instead of it being a - yes, vague, but also broad - “don’t do this thing we don’t want you to do, we’re not defining it but we’ll all know it if we see it”, it’s ended up being a quagmire of clauses and exclusions and interpretations. Idk, yeah, probably it’s going to get nickel-and-dimed into being repealed at some point, because the more unwieldy it gets the more edge cases are created and the more wiling people will become to run the risk or spend the cost to get around something that has become rather a weak prohibition.

The principle that we should trust people not to break the rules seems to generally work.

“Don’t break the rules” maybe works without question because it’s unambiguous - people may disagree on what the game’s individual rules actually mean, but not, I think, what it means to break a rule, or whether it’s possible to only partially break one. Instructions like “don’t cooperate” and “don’t make requests about photo contents” are much more subjective, and blurrier at the edges.

going idle. clear this dynasty is going to end with people trying to legislate what cooperation meant after the fact and that doesn’t seem like a fun time to me