Thursday, October 21, 2021

Proposal: I Never Bet on Baseball [Core]

Enacted popular, 14-0. Josh

Adminned at 22 Oct 2021 16:53:10 UTC

Add to the bulleted list in the rule “Fair Play” the following:

* A Realtor should not trade actions in BlogNomic for favors or compensation outside of BlogNomic, nor trade actions in any other game for favors within BlogNomic.

Per Kevan, no need to start out a new dynasty with too many controversial proposals over constitutional reform, but this one seems to have unanimous assent.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

21-10-2021 00:47:22 UTC

What are your thoughts on including banning favors in future dynasties?

On the one hand, I think this is something hopefully we can all agree on so would be good to just get it in.

On the other, I think inter-dynasty favors are probably not great for the game either.

Brendan: he/him

21-10-2021 00:52:57 UTC

Interdynastic favors remain much more of an open question, from my perspective; it wasn’t very long ago that they were explicitly tracked and mechanical. That experiment did seem to produce outcomes most players considered undesirable, but I think that’s well outside the bounds of a core definition of fair play. “Okay, you won the coin flip for mantle pass this time, so next time you win you agree to pass to me” is of a very different character than the matter under consideration here, and I for one don’t feel especially bothered by it in concept.

redtara: they/them

21-10-2021 01:06:58 UTC

“outside the medium of BlogNomic” is a bit vague, as is the notion of a favour. Eg would saying “fine, I’ll vote on the proposal if you stop nagging me about it” on the discord count as both, either, neither ? Though I think the fair play rules generally have a “don’t be a smart aleck, we’ll know it when we see it” character so for me it’s not an issue.

Brendan: he/him

21-10-2021 01:25:03 UTC

Would “milieu” be better?

redtara: they/them

21-10-2021 01:49:57 UTC

I’m not sure, for me the intent is clear enough but I’m more lax about that kind of thing.

redtara: they/them

21-10-2021 02:00:36 UTC

I think some of my hesitation about this comes from the ambiguity of like. So presumably a compact between a group of players is fine (I’ll support your proposals if you support mine or whatever). But what if that group of players went off and set up their own private nomic, and started making deals with each other on the basis of that private nomic’s gameplay? Presumably we would want to prohibit that. There’s an obvious substantial difference between those two, but in terms of formally differentiating between them, it seems difficult. How complex is a compact allowed to be before it becomes something we’d want to ban? But maybe I’m way overthinking this, and it’s probably better to have this, which covers many obvious cases, than not to.

Clucky: he/him

21-10-2021 04:11:14 UTC

“I’ll support your blognomic proposals if you support my blognomic
proposals”

is a trade of actions in Blognomic for favors/compensation inside of blognomic, not outside. so I’m not sure the problem

TyGuy6:

21-10-2021 05:39:20 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

21-10-2021 05:41:54 UTC

for

I’d still like to ban future trading because it helps solve some emperor problems Kevan pointed out in the last dynasty, but this is a good start

Chiiika: she/her

21-10-2021 06:37:36 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

21-10-2021 07:47:55 UTC

for

And yes, I think I’d support expanding this to “outside of the current BlogNomic dynasty” to prevent long-game favours.

Josh: Observer he/they

21-10-2021 08:47:33 UTC

for I would not support extending Fair Play sanctions to intra-dynastic favours.

Kevan: he/him

21-10-2021 09:36:09 UTC

What kind of thing would a good intra-dynastic favour be? I don’t mind experimenting with rules that explicitly allow a resource to be traded across dynasties (or even into other games, if we all know it’s happening), but the more informal “I unidle and give Bob all my coins, to pay him back for a favour he did me in 2017” stuff feels about the same as “for a favour he did me in Othernomic”, to me.

(I’m not sure what Clucky’s “some emperor problems Kevan pointed out in the last dynasty” is referring to. All I remember is me proposing to block mantle passes to the Emperor, and Clucky saying it wasn’t worth doing that unless we also went further and stopped all interdynastic favours.)

Josh: Observer he/they

21-10-2021 10:08:24 UTC

Interesting note: recently, ais voted to benefit Bucky based on an Agora-related promise from several years ago and it elicited no comment at the time; it may be worth reflecting on why Cuddlebeam’s actions are bad and ais’ action wasn’t, although I’m not really challenging the premise.

@Kevan: Say that Harris and Sheila worked together in a dynasty, agreed a 50:50 split, and won. Sheila won the roll. Three dynasties later they work together again; this time, Harris argues that the split should be 60:40, as Sheila got the benefit last time. Is that an OK thing for Harris to ask, or no?

Kevan: he/him

21-10-2021 10:36:51 UTC

I think the Harris/Sheila thing wouldn’t actually fall under a hypothetical “a Realtor should not trade actions in [a dynasty] for favors or compensation outside of [that dynasty]”, because it’s retrospective. I’d say that actions were only being meaningfully “traded” if the agreement was made before either of the actions happened.

If it was an entirely premeditated “this dynasty I’ll take a 50:50 split, on the agreement that the next time you and I are in this situation it’ll be 60:40 towards whoever loses this one”, I wouldn’t particularly mourn that being ruled out in the interests of keeping dynasties self-contained.

Josh: Observer he/they

21-10-2021 10:48:16 UTC

What do you think about ais and Bucky’s favour trade from the Vampire dynasty?

Josh: Observer he/they

21-10-2021 10:49:03 UTC

I dunno; I think 90% of the use cases here are going to be benign bordering on mundane, and I’m on the fence about whether the other 10% are worth legislating about

Josh: Observer he/they

21-10-2021 10:51:00 UTC

I also think that eg Medallions being effectively permanently taken off the table by a Fair Play prohibition seems a bit much; there’s still energy around allowing cross-dynastic resources and mechanics, and I’m not sure that the bathwater is worth the baby, here.

Kevan: he/him

21-10-2021 11:07:18 UTC

As far as I understood it, the Ais/Bucky thing was the ruleset unintentionally meeting a cute aesthetic challenge they’d set themselves, to have Nomic rules where idle players can take actions. That it wasn’t Ais’s rule, it was Ais saying that now the loophole was there, he’d rather not repeal it - and he was saying all that before it was an issue, rather than arguing obliquely for something without saying why.

I thought Cuddlebeam becoming TyGuy’s 100%-controlled sockpuppet was more egregious than them giving up a few BlogNomic votes to get a favour in Agora, really.

Cross-dynastic resources and mechanics could overrule whatever needed to be overruled. Ultimately I’m struggling to see much difference between someone cashing in a pre-agreed favour from another Nomic, and a pre-agreed favour from another dynasty of the same Nomic.

Madrid:

21-10-2021 11:42:42 UTC

for

pokes:

21-10-2021 11:54:44 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

21-10-2021 12:33:32 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

21-10-2021 13:16:08 UTC

for

Axemabaro:

21-10-2021 15:11:13 UTC

for

Zack: he/him

21-10-2021 16:25:22 UTC

for

TyGuy6:

21-10-2021 18:33:41 UTC

for

TyGuy6:

21-10-2021 18:33:59 UTC

Oh, oops, I voted twice.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

21-10-2021 19:35:35 UTC

for

Vovix: he/him

21-10-2021 20:34:19 UTC

for Yes, please. Although I’m willing to change this to an Against for 40 Dogecoins.