Monday, March 06, 2017

Core Rule Changes?

I didn’t see anything about it but I assume we can change the core rules, what do you guys think about something like this? Or even adding Atomic Actions and Hiatus to the Core section of the rules? Two hours might be a bit long if many more players were added.

Proposal: Note Fix
Add to the section “Proposals”

Proposals have two states, closed and open. Submitted proposals start out with the open state. Open proposals may be voted on and closed proposals cannot be voted on but may be self-killed. When a comment is made that begins with “Note:” and it contains no voting icons, then the proposal’s state is closed. Each Organ may only close a given proposal once. If a proposal is closed, then it may be set to open when all of the players who have closed a proposal post another comment containing an arrow or all of the comments that close a proposal are over 2 hours old.

Change “If no Organ has commented on it, or if the only comments on it begin with “Note:” and contain no voting icons, an official post may be altered or removed by its author;” to-

If no Organ has commented on it, if no votes are cast while it’s state is open, or if the only comments on it begin with “Note:” and have no voting icons, then an official post may be altered or removed by its author;

Not actually a votable matter but discussion, spotting errors or even coming up with better ideas that can lead to improvement in the core game.

Comments

Cuddlebeam:

03-06-2017 21:21:22 UTC

This is kinda like a protosal but oh well

Rules which give us more optional tools are never bad imo, unless the way those rules are written is vulnerable because then the rules which use those tools will be vulnerable as well. (For example how the rules that used “may” collapsed because of how the “may” tool was written)

Oracular rufio:

03-06-2017 21:26:19 UTC

Kevan said the problem with Notes last dynasty was that they would influence people to avoid voting.  This just increases the problem by actually preventing voting.

derrick:

03-06-2017 21:29:12 UTC

We do not have the technical mechanisms to enforce “closed proposals cannot be voted on but may be self-killed”.

The arrow is weird. I’d prefer a word. Also, what is it used for right now?

Kevan:

03-06-2017 21:31:11 UTC

Hmm. So this is making each player’s first “Note:” comment add two hours to the timeout clock, so that excessively noted proposals don’t time out with less time for scrutiny, compared to regular ones?

[Derrick] Nothing.

Viv:

03-06-2017 21:42:23 UTC

Extended discussion may lead to baroque rules that shape the game less flexibly, and to routine disclosure of loopholes. I don’t think destabilising the game now and then is a bad thing weighed against that. We have CFJ for clarificaton and we can always self kill or add a new proposal to fix things up.

Viv:

03-06-2017 21:47:06 UTC

In other words: just go ahead and fix later. It doesn’t seem preferable to have the ruleset arrive in polished pre vetted chunks rather than overlapping layers.

card:

03-06-2017 22:06:56 UTC

[Kevan] It should probably be worded that the player could simply add an arrow to their comment to make it not close the proposal. Or keep the note function like it is and if someone uses an arrow it closes/opens a proposal.

That’s the idea, so that if someone makes an important note, presumably it should be addressed by someone or people should be given more time to make changes. It would be rather annoying to make a note about something that should be addressed, and someone immediately locks the proposal by voting; especially if it’s ninja’d and the voter didn’t have any time to consider the note. Maybe a one hour timer is better?

[Viv] I thought that since it would be a change to the core rules that it would be beneficial to discuss them before making an unpolished proposal that becomes locked once someone votes on it.

Viv:

03-06-2017 22:17:23 UTC

[Card] Oh I mean generally, not in regards to this suggested proposal. I’d avoid encouraging extended pre-voting discussion within proposal comments. If we accept fairly quick votes I think the game play will adjust and flow better. Like earlier today when we got two overlapping ones and ended up with a perfectly fine result quickly… It might waste done ones proposal slots but they slow down over time anyway.

card:

03-06-2017 22:40:28 UTC

[Viv] So you’re saying it’s better for proposals to be quick and then have mistakes fixed later, rather than have them fixed in the comments. Does a smaller time limit on when a proposal is closed address your issue for this? Say 30 minutes or 10 even?

Viv:

03-06-2017 22:43:12 UTC

I do like the dormancy rule.

Technically I suppose rules can be toggled back in any time from anywhere but a repository of popular dynastic rules might be useful. Is there one?

Kevan:

03-06-2017 22:56:31 UTC

[card] It’d be simpler to just reframe the “open for voting for 48 hours” phrases to something like “48 hours since the first vote was cast”, wouldn’t it? This open/closed status seems a bit baroque.

There are other problems in altering proposals too casually. If I propose something, everyone reads it and has a lengthy six hour conversation about it, and I then make some changes, those same players have to carefully read the whole proposal again to see what I’ve changed. (Maybe I’ve fixed a problem but also snuck in a loophole that wasn’t there first time around.) And the whole queue slows down a bit - we certainly saw a few Noted proposals timing out last dynasty, I suspect because some people held back their vote on seeing the Note conversation was still open, and then forgot to go back later and cast an actual vote.

The timing problem bothers me (this CfJ nearly timed out with no votes because everyone was being polite and letting the conversation continue; its author could have edited it to read “I win”), but I think I’d rather just see an amendment saying that proposals could only be edited for six hours, or something.

I think the basic proposal system is robust enough, really. If a player makes a popular but flawed proposal, we’ll either vote it through to patch later, or someone (either the same player or - as has already happened today - a helpful bystander) will repropose a fixed version. It feels more Nomic to have mechanics thrown together piecemeal, and handed around, than for one player to keep polishing something and holding it back until the last moment.

Kevan:

03-06-2017 22:59:06 UTC

[Viv] Popular dynastic rules and keywords (like “daily actions”) tend to migrate to the appendices. I expect we might move Atomic Actions and Dormancy in there soon.

Viv:

03-06-2017 23:01:29 UTC

[Card] I enjoy seeing a rule do something unplanned (or secretly planned) more than discussing possible outcomes. Refining the system in any way to encourage discussion over voting is against that preference… It’s not so much that discussion skews votes, more that it makes the game less of a game.

I believe in complexity via improvisation.  Completely accept that that’s not universal, and noting that the present set of players favours discussion. I’m chaotic lawful, somehow.

Viv:

03-06-2017 23:02:41 UTC

[Kevan] Appendices! I thought there must be a thing like that. Hah. Good.

card:

03-06-2017 23:09:23 UTC

[Kevan] I see now, airtight rules are not always fun to make or discuss, neither are they always necessary. Like Viv mentioned it can be fun to have oddly worded rules that sneak in unintended consequences.

pokes:

03-06-2017 23:24:01 UTC

The rule as stated in OP is too complicated and newbie-unfriendly for my taste. My personal wishlist for proposal Note:‘ing would be (a) changing it so that any no-vote-icon comment keeps editing open, not just Notes but also (b) cultivating an atmosphere where it’s not considered impolite to lock something down with a vote after a small handful hours, *especially* CfJs.

Viv:

03-06-2017 23:29:59 UTC

(Back to Statolith)
There probably is a balance.

card:

03-07-2017 00:13:36 UTC

A balance of gravity perhaps?