Sunday, October 03, 2021

Proposal: Holding the Doors

Hits quorum and becomes popular 7-2. RT

Adminned at 05 Oct 2021 04:40:40 UTC

Repeal “Logistics”.

How do we feel about the whole “vote to move” Movement Proposal mechanic, when other voters can potentially change their move quicker than you can change your vote on whether you want them to take that move? Straight proposals of “move everyone on Floors 1-10 to Floor 50” or “move Clucky to 37, move Brendan to 22…” (where the list of floors have been informally negotiated beforehand by those involved) would be less of a timing headache for players.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

03-10-2021 09:29:34 UTC

“Each Citizen has a desired destination, which is a floor number that is publicly tracked and which defaults to 1. A movement proposal is a proposal with the [Movement] tag that links to the specific edit of the Gamestate that was in effect when it was posted; when it is enacted, each citizen moves to the floor listed in their desired destination.”

How does that feel?

Kevan: he/him

03-10-2021 09:46:46 UTC

Solid, but a bit opaque, and still with some timing issues: if there are three Movement proposals in a row, a constantly-attentive player will be able to optimise their Destination to achieve great feats (even if the Movement proposals come from their rivals), while a player who slept through it will be stuck moving to the same Floor three times.

Brendan: he/him

03-10-2021 13:32:06 UTC

against Has it led to problems yet?

Kevan: he/him

03-10-2021 13:48:36 UTC

It’s always hard to tell from the Imperial seat, but it’s definitely going against an intention of the dynasty - I wanted to tie game actions to proposals, so that players would have to negotiate over them. Movement Proposals are tying movement to votes, which are very different and introduce timing problems (that it’s better to vote very late so that you have a better, but not perfect, idea of what you’re actually voting on; it’s better to be an admin so that you can change your move at the last minute; etc).

If a quorum are fine with it, though, I guess that’s that, I won’t push it further.

TyGuy6:

03-10-2021 17:42:41 UTC

imperial Straight up proposals to move are fine, except that they can be easier to block by a quorum of other players, and could clog up the queue, and is slower. Coordination could improve all these elements. I guess the idea is that we’d be offloading the realtime negotiations to chat, and in endgame, to cabal chats? Seems reasonable to me.

lemon: she/her

03-10-2021 20:02:41 UTC

for yes! i think the current system is way too freely usable, to the point of nullifying any need for direct floor-editing proposals

(the reason i proposed my system, which was way more restricted & repealed this rule as well, was to encourage people to vote yes on proposals which would move others in order to get minor movements in return, while still maintaining that direct proposal-posting would be the best form of travel)

Josh: Observer he/they

03-10-2021 20:08:31 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

03-10-2021 23:25:58 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

03-10-2021 23:59:19 UTC

@Brendan: I would have picked a different floor had I seen in time that I was going to be joined by someone.

Clucky: he/him

04-10-2021 16:40:38 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

05-10-2021 03:52:26 UTC

for

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

05-10-2021 04:06:55 UTC

imperial