Saturday, December 05, 2015

Proposal: JoshCorp Best Practice

Timed out 2 votes to 1, with 2 unresolved DEFs. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Dec 2015 20:02:51 UTC

In the “Finance” rule, replace “when a Clerk is Paid, they gain 1 Money per Committee that they are a member of” with:-

when a Clerk is Paid, they gain 3 Money

If Josh posted a comment of “Told you so.” on this proposal, unidle him.

Sad to see Josh idling out over this. (“It’s softly snowbally (the more committees you’re on, the more money you have to bribe with, the more committees you can get into) and it’s really harshly pejorative against unidling players. Better a flat salary, I think, with maybe a side-game bonus structure.”) This amendment might not be the best way of implementing a flat salary alternative, but we should see if a quorum feel the same way as Josh and nip Finance in the bud if so.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

05-12-2015 19:36:14 UTC

imperial Abstaining as I think the existing rule seems okay.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2015 20:29:47 UTC

For what it’s worth, I think the existing rule is fine - it just doesn’t indicate a game I especially want to play.

(Although it does feel slightly symptomatic: I feel like the last few dynasties have ended up with a set-up where most players detach from the game when it becomes clear that only a subset of them can actually win. This is compounded by an issue whereby it seems to take ages for one of that subset to actually win. While I don’t think this one issue will send this dynasty careening down that path, I’d love to play a dynasty that recaptured a sense that any player could win, even the one who appeared to have been sleepily nodding proposals through and otherwise not really participating.)

Josh: Observer he/they

05-12-2015 20:31:36 UTC

Also, thanks for raising this, Kevan! I did consider putting forward a similar proposal but it seemed bad-natured.

Kevan: he/him

05-12-2015 21:33:00 UTC

Actually, anybody could have won the last dynasty - the trick I pulled with the Moon and the Shadows was open to anyone who spotted it, and somebody with a luckier follow-up draw or better plan could have locked down the win more effectively than I did.

And anyone-can-win is always built into the heart of Nomic, in the form of those kinds of sudden ruleset scams. Even the most leadenly predictable dynasty could flare up into exploits and counter-scams at any moment. Scamming feels like the place for the sudden win from the player snoozing in the armchair - while waiting for that scam to hit (or honing the one up my sleeve), I’d rather be playing a boardgame where attention and clever moves were rewarded, and worth planning and arguing over, than something that had its anyone-can-win at the subgame level.

It’s sad when dynasties stagnate down to two or three interested players and the rest idling out with blank GNDT fields, but I’m not sure what’s really causing it. (Or why the idlers don’t attempt a catch-up proposal, if they’re clearly in the majority.) Holding back the attentive, tactical players and buoying up the inactive ones would certainly make the game appear busier and more closely-fought, but I’m not sure that overall player enjoyment would actually go up.

RaichuKFM: she/her

05-12-2015 22:59:09 UTC

for I think it’d be best if a snowball type effect doesn’t get rolling, at least not yet, personally, even if it’s a small one.

Tantusar: he/they

06-12-2015 06:46:52 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

06-12-2015 10:16:27 UTC

against

Murphy:

06-12-2015 18:09:42 UTC

imperial