Friday, July 31, 2015

Proposal: Dead End

Vetoed while vote at 3-0. Adminned 11:58 by Tantusar.

Adminned at 31 Jul 2015 11:58:41 UTC

Apply the ruleset changes proposed by the previous proposal.

Replace “chosen in a random order” with “in an order of the Head Scientist’s choosing” in the rule “Tests”.

Feeling a bit of a chilling effect in here after Tuesday’s veto. If proposals have to fit the Emperor’s unmentioned gameplay plans and his or her subjective idea of fun, it’s much harder to write them confidently.

I’m just going to try a reproposal of that last one, minus the random sequencing.

posted by Kevan at 31 Jul 2015 10:07:00 UTC Comments (5)

Comments

Josh: he/they

31-07-2015 10:19:24 UTC

I mean, fair. This was a proposal that was clearly set to pass.

for

Kevan: he/him

31-07-2015 10:22:49 UTC

Might be good to have an essay on the wiki about how best to employ vetoes, and the unintended effects they can have on player morale. The ruleset alone doesn’t really give any clues.

Josh: he/they

31-07-2015 10:29:33 UTC

I think BlogNomic can be prone to having a slight conservative approach to player conduct. I’m not sure that the risk that we occasionally have to relearn why disapproved behaviours are disapproved the hard way is worth the possibility that play is ossified by social pressure.

Purplebeard:

31-07-2015 11:53:33 UTC

for

Tantusar: he/they

31-07-2015 11:57:11 UTC

You know, I think I’ve worked out my main problem with this whole thing. If we combine amendments 2 and 3 and call them one change, we have three substantial but loosely related changes. That’s Part A of The Problem, if you will.

If I had to choose one and only one of those three changes to kill off, it would be the last one. I can deal with being limited to one Test at a time, I can work Tasks around that. Heck, I can even deal with having to do up a random list of players every time I want to make a Test. But that third change is no good. It precludes all but the simplest of Tasks. I mean, if we’re trying to drive up new player numbers maybe that’s not such a bad thing, but…

Look, I get that you’re all seasoned veterans, and I’m not even two months through my time here… But I’m trying, okay? I’m trying to make it so that this all fits the collective’s subjective definition of fun. I’m trying to keep y’all happy while juggling that with keeping my own state of mind healthy. Okay, so all of you have done Dynasties before, you know how it goes, At this point I’m just rambling. Sorry about that.

My point is that while I would consider changes 1 and 2 safe, happy changes, any Proposal that contains change 3 is likely to suffer the same fate. Fortunately for everyone involved, this Proposal is at the top of the queue and my vote of veto can only give Kevan back his slot so he can post some more stuff. In fact, if you choose to resubmit this, I wouldn’t object to the inclusion of the random list clause again. And while I might grumble a bit about the limitation of one Test at a time, I can’t say it’s worse than change 3. Heck no.

Sorry about the kerfuffle, everyone. Regular testing will resume shortly.