Sunday, August 15, 2021

Proposal: Feedback Loop [Appendix]

Times out and fails, 2-4. -Bucky

Adminned at 17 Aug 2021 21:40:45 UTC

Add a subrule to the Appendix called “Requests for Feedback”

Any Worker who wishes to seek feedback on a proposal they are working on or something else to do with the state of the game may submit a Requests for Feedback by posting an entry in the “Requests for Feedback” category. A Worker may not submit a Request For Feedback if they already have two or more open Requests for Feedback. Requests for Feedback are voteable matters, but may only be voted on by its author. If a Request for Feedback has been open for 96 hours, or if its author has voted against it, any Admin may resolve the request for feedback by marking it as closed.

Turning protosals into an actual thing. That way, we can add a “Request for Feedback” category and then show them on the sidebar so they don’t get lost.

Comments

Bucky:

15-08-2021 21:32:43 UTC

“Closed” is not a valid status for a votable matter unless you amend 1.4.2 to match. As a hack, you can have it always fail when resolved.

Bucky:

15-08-2021 21:42:33 UTC

Also, if this is supposed to be more effective for prototyping than an unofficial post, it needs to give the author permission to update its content while it’s pending, after the usual window.

ais523:

16-08-2021 00:59:26 UTC

It’s sort-of possible to do this at the moment, by putting an unofficial post into the “Story Posts – Votable Matter” category. It is helpful to have instructions about when and how the post should be removed, though!

I’m not sure whether the edit lock is necessarily harmful here – if you view it more as a discussion thread that can move, having a fixed conversation starter may be useful. (You can always link to a wiki page if you want to work on exact wordings wiki-style.)

As Bucky says, there will probably need to be some blog template changes or the like in order to allow us to get rid of these cleanly. for anyway, because I think this is generally going to helpful for new players (who generally have their first several proposals fail) and for major changes that need a lot of discussion about the details, and we can fix the technical issues related to this later (possibly on the ExpressionEngine rather than ruleset side). (I know I normally hate the “pass and fix” approach, but a proposal like this doesn’t seem to be usefully scammable!)

FWIW, I’ve been meaning to write a counter-essay to “Protosals Considered Harmful”, but never got round to it.

Bucky:

16-08-2021 02:01:20 UTC

Surprisingly, this doesn’t seem to require server-level admin access to implement as required by 4.2.

However, I’m sticking with against for the reasons I described previously, and because “Add a subrule to the Appendix” doesn’t specify which rule to make it a subrule of.

Janet: she/her

16-08-2021 03:04:26 UTC

against because of subrule issue. greentick for version 2 with issues fixed, though.

Kevan: City he/him

17-08-2021 07:51:43 UTC

Putting the subrule in a weird place wouldn’t actually break anything, would it?

against because this seems useful for occasional core changes, but (with no guidance for usage) also opens the door for slower and more disruptive dynastic play, where if someone posts a big idea about overhauling Machines, that shuts down or complicates all Machine-related amendments for 96 hours.

I also haven’t given the ruleset a close enough reading to be confident that a Request for Feedback can’t be enacted with some game effect when it gets “resolved” and (as Bucky says, new word for the ruleset) “closed”.

Josh: he/they

17-08-2021 10:28:56 UTC

against I’m not sure why having only two slots for this makes sense, given then you can just pivot to non-official posts to sidestep the limit if you have to.

Kevan: City he/him

17-08-2021 12:41:43 UTC

[Josh] A single player starting multiple, prominent “and another thing I think we should discuss” threads can be overwhelming. Three per player definitely feels like too much to me.

Josh: he/they

17-08-2021 15:55:06 UTC

I’m not sure I’m on board with two protosals per player either, volume-wise, but given that these are more or less inert and any restriction can be trivially sidestepped it seems silly to have that restriction.