Saturday, November 05, 2022

Proposal: Hait And See

Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 06 Nov 2022 09:31:58 UTC

Change the description of the keyword Hiatus in the Appendix to read as follows:

If BlogNomic is on Hiatus, Dynastic Actions may not be taken (except where the rule defining the action explicitly requires it to be taken during Hiatus), Proposals may not be submitted or Resolved, and players may not join the game or be made idle or unidle. If multiple rules require BlogNomic to be on Hiatus at any given time, BlogNomic will continue to be on Hiatus until no rules require it.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

05-11-2022 10:43:29 UTC

We also had two new players join during that last DoV, which I think could have waited until the new dynasty.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-11-2022 10:55:36 UTC

Good point - have added that in, thanks.

Kevan: he/him

05-11-2022 14:57:08 UTC

for

Bucky:

05-11-2022 16:33:30 UTC

against

This has some bad interactions with Dormancy. If Blognomic ever goes into Dormancy due to a lack of players, this change would prevent it from recovering normally.

Similarly, I don’t see any reason to keep people from joining the dynasty during seasonal downtime.

If this is a problem with DoV voting, the fix should be specific to DoVs.

Benbot: he/him

05-11-2022 17:12:54 UTC

against  See what Buckey said. The Alien does not agree with this proposal. (Why am I saying for the Alien Right Now?)

Kevan: he/him

05-11-2022 17:31:19 UTC

against CoV per Bucky.

JonathanDark: he/him

05-11-2022 18:21:25 UTC

against

Agree with Bucky, plus the FAQ on the Wiki is somewhat of a meta-rule (how do the outside-the-rules Wiki affect the actual game rules, if at all?)

https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=FAQ#Can_I_join_in.3F

“Yes, the game is always open to new players. You don’t have to wait for a new round to start, you can jump in halfway through one”

Halfway probably doesn’t mean literally “halfway” as that would be hard to measure, so ignoring that part, players currently don’t have to wait for a new round to start.

Habanero:

05-11-2022 18:25:15 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

05-11-2022 18:25:48 UTC

[Jonathan] The FAQ isn’t binding at all, and it’s not defined as gamestate, so editing it is completely unregulated: players can (and should) bring it up to date to reflect the reality of the ruleset.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-11-2022 18:31:59 UTC

Fair enough re Dormancy; withdrawn against

Bucky:

05-11-2022 18:43:02 UTC

I think Dormancy needs some proposal attention in general, that’s why I have it temporarily off. Being in Hiatus makes it a bit harder to stay non-idle, cuts off many options for making official posts, and makes it impossible to edit the gamestate tracking page as part of a defined dynastic action. Ideally increased activity would naturally deactivate Dormancy when it’s no longer needed. Instead, Dormancy under the second criterion prevents the increased activity from triggering the metrics it looks at to end Dormancy and requires a concerted and specific effort to end.

Kevan: he/him

05-11-2022 19:55:20 UTC

The second Dormancy criteria, where the game has had only one player apart from the Emperor doing anything for a full week, seems a clear enough fail state that I’d say it was fine for it to require a full CfJ to resolve. Really it’s such a ridiculous extreme (it’s possibly only happened once in the game’s history?) that we should either set it to a more meaningful number, or repeal it.

But the first criteria should definitely go back to being automatic. It was a shame that the recent monster city dynasty hit the four-player mark without its admins wanting to activate Dormancy, leading the dynasty to drift on for another full week before ending with a simple, single die-roll.