Sunday, August 15, 2021

Proposal: Liberté, égalité, communité

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 17 Aug 2021 17:35:36 UTC

Add the following to the end of the rule Fair Play:

All Workers and idle Workers should be aware of the BlogNomic [[Community Guidelines]]. These guidelines are nonbinding as pertains to the ruleset but Workers are encouraged to commit to upholding them to whatever extent is possible.

If the Community Guidelines page of the wiki has been edited since the posting of this proposal, revert it to this edit: https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Community_Guidelines&oldid=16356

Add a link to the Community Guidelines to the blog sidebar, the front page of the wiki, the new player’s guide, and anywhere else that might be appropriate.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

15-08-2021 19:02:02 UTC

> The rhythm of a dynasty of BlogNomic should not be less than 24 hours - which is to say, the ruleset should usually not require players to check the game more than once a day.

we already have a proposal in progress that violates this (requiring players to check the blog as soon as a cycle happens in order to get their victory in). It seems a bit odd to me to talk about it being rare, while there is already an exception to that rarity in the queue with several votes for it.

Clucky: he/him

15-08-2021 19:04:21 UTC

I also feel “Antisocial conduct should not be accepted in this community” probably is too ambiguous to not cause problems. I would consider lying to people and intentionally misleading them in order to get them to vote for the proposals you want or otherwise do your bidding to be “antisocial conduct”. But from chats in the discord, other people consider that sort of behavior to be just fine.

Clucky: he/him

15-08-2021 19:07:40 UTC

Finally, I’m somewhat worried that “Players are expected to maintain an assumption of good faith and to step away from the game when that assumption cannot be maintained.” would simply result in simply driving people out of the game who don’t want to deal with certain behavior but, due to the push to maintain an assumption of good faith, following the guidelines and simply stepping away from the game rather than doing something else about it.

Josh: he/they

15-08-2021 19:11:12 UTC

Do remember that all of this is nonbinding; there isn’t any requirement for it to be adhered to religiously or even particularly consistently. It’s a starting point for future discussions of interpersonal conduct; not a full stop, and certainly not a threat of sanction.

I’d vote the currently pending proposal as being undesirable for the reason you set out.

Clucky: he/him

15-08-2021 19:22:34 UTC

Fair enough. I think its a pretty good framework/starting point. I just wonder if we want to make some changes to it before actually putting it in the ruleset.

Vovix: he/him

15-08-2021 19:26:20 UTC

I don’t think there’s anything about “assumption of good faith” that precludes arguing for culture changes or calling out behavior you personally dislike. I think the idea is more to avoid endless accusations of “you’re only saying that to get ahead!” and “You guys are singling me out!” that end up shutting down both in-game and out of game debates. If you disagree with someone, engage with their position, don’t start the discussion by claiming that their whole argument is fake. Similarly, if you think someone’s behavior is making the game unenjoyable, starting with the assumption that they’re playing in the way they think makes the game fun, rather than accusing them of being out to ruin yours, will massively impact the tone and productivity of the discussion.

Josh: he/they

15-08-2021 19:30:37 UTC

@Clucky It’s been up for discussion for a while, but I’m unusually willing to put this up again if needs be to get it approved in the right way.

Clucky: he/him

15-08-2021 19:31:05 UTC

but that’s kinda the problem. when coincidences turn into patterns turn into trends… at some point you stop being able to assume good faith

I think at that point, taking a step back will help in some regards but I don’t think just leaving without doing anything further is the right thing for the overall health of the game because all you’re doing then is ignoring the problem

Clucky: he/him

15-08-2021 19:47:35 UTC

@Josh we really need a good way of getting feedback on something that doesn’t immediately get lost in the shuffle

fortunately, this is a nomic and we can add such a way =D

Bucky:

15-08-2021 23:26:53 UTC

against

ais523:

16-08-2021 00:51:06 UTC

“Add a link to the Community Guidelines to the blog sidebar, the front page of the wiki, the new player’s guide, and anywhere else that might be appropriate.” looks like it’s an advisory message to an admin, but I think it’s technically binding, and thus might actually cause this proposal to be illegally enacted (holding up the queue) if the enacting admin misses a place that might be appropriate?

I’m also still wary of the suggestion of 24 hours as a minimum game cycle; a clarifying note along the lines of “however, a pace of 48 hours would be more normal” would help avoid accidentally encouraging new Emperors to make their dynasties too fast.

ais523:

16-08-2021 00:52:26 UTC

I’m in favour of the spirit behind this proposal, though, even though it probably needs more work on the details.

Bucky:

16-08-2021 02:02:49 UTC

Oh, “anywhere else that might be appropriate” looks to me like permission to put it in places that are probably inappropriate.

Bucky:

16-08-2021 02:42:12 UTC

> might actually cause this proposal to be illegally enacted (holding up the queue) if the enacting admin misses a place that might be appropriate?

Or, worse, ambiguously held-up if there’s a dispute over whether a particular place the admin did put it was actually appropriate.

lemon: she/her

16-08-2021 11:05:18 UTC

for

Kevan: City he/him

16-08-2021 11:35:25 UTC

I’m still not really sure what effect the “Sacrificing other parts of your life (like sleep) to potentially increase your chances of victory” line is intending to actually have on the game. Right now if someone proposes “free cake at 1am UTC”, I’d vote that down on the grounds that I’d usually be asleep and wouldn’t want the pressure of maybe staying up late in a situation where a free cake would swing the game. I’m not sure what the sacrifice guideline is actually advising in this situation - that we should act as if nobody would ever stay up late to win (but might for other reasons), and vote accordingly? It feels backwards, to me: that we should instead be advising against writing rules where such a sacrifice would be rewarded. The answer to “but someone could take advantage of this by getting up two hours early / persuading three offline friends / spending £50 on eBay / brute-forcing the dictionary” should be “good point, will amend” rather than “let’s assume that they won’t, while also accepting it if they do”.

The good faith stuff seems fine. I don’t think Clucky’s concern that “at some point you stop being able to assume good faith” is a flaw in the guideline; it’s the reason the guideline is there. If I’m personally 100% convinced that Epimenides is acting to spite me and is lying about his reasons for voting against my proposal, I should still try to act as if he was voting in good faith (that he has merely misunderstood the proposal, or has forgotten something, or is voting self-interestedly, or is bound by some private agreement with another player), for the sake of the game’s atmosphere. If he actually is lying spitefully, that will come out later - if the post-dynastic breakdown shows that actually he was having to honour some private deal he couldn’t mention, the dynastic damage of the personal attack is already done. An aggressive “he’s lying out of spite!” is a signal to other players that if they misunderstand my proposals, vote selfishly on them, etc, I will needle them about it as well.

And there is definitely a big social agreement here - and in any game - that players don’t push each other into a situation where they actually have to deny their plans or private motives. That if I ask a Magic player whether they have a counterspell in their hand, or ask Cuddlebeam whether one of the ten objects they’re proposing has a scam in it, they will rightly demur rather than outright saying “no” (even if the true answer is “no”).

against per Bucky, that “and anywhere else that might be appropriate” allowing links with no defined text content (only a defined destination) to be inserted into the ruleset. Putting “Kevan has achieved victory” at the top of the Machines rule probably isn’t appropriate, but might be.

ais523:

17-08-2021 02:13:53 UTC

against In favour of the concept, but against this specific version of it.

Clucky: he/him

17-08-2021 05:32:02 UTC

against

Vovix: he/him

17-08-2021 05:57:30 UTC

against Cause admin scam

Vovix: he/him

17-08-2021 06:00:38 UTC

“The good faith stuff seems fine. I don’t think Clucky’s concern that “at some point you stop being able to assume good faith” is a flaw in the guideline; it’s the reason the guideline is there. If I’m personally 100% convinced that Epimenides is acting to spite me and is lying about his reasons for voting against my proposal, I should still try to act as if he was voting in good faith (that he has merely misunderstood the proposal, or has forgotten something, or is voting self-interestedly, or is bound by some private agreement with another player), for the sake of the game’s atmosphere. If he actually is lying spitefully, that will come out later - if the post-dynastic breakdown shows that actually he was having to honour some private deal he couldn’t mention, the dynastic damage of the personal attack is already done. An aggressive “he’s lying out of spite!” is a signal to other players that if they misunderstand my proposals, vote selfishly on them, etc, I will needle them about it as well.”

You phrased my thoughts better than I was able to. Exactly this, accusations of bad faith don’t actually fix the perceived problem, just create needless antagonism, because there’s no way to respond constructively to being told that you’re faking being constructive.

Kevan: City he/him

17-08-2021 08:14:11 UTC

For what it’s worth I’d vote for this as written, just not with the “insert a link where it might be appropriate” issue. I’d repropose immediately, but don’t know if Josh wants to change anything before that.

Josh: he/they

17-08-2021 10:27:09 UTC

Yeah I’ll make some small changes per Clucky’s and ais’ comments, and will repropose shortly.

Kevan: City he/him

17-08-2021 10:33:05 UTC

Although is it correct that the Guidelines page wouldn’t be gamestate, so could be edited after the fact anyway?

ais523:

17-08-2021 11:59:50 UTC

I think it wouldn’t be gamestate (thus could be edited) – anything linked from a dynastic rule automatically becomes gamestate, but that’s specific to dynastic rules, and Fair Play is core.

Josh: he/they

17-08-2021 12:16:48 UTC

That seems like a bad idea; probably best to make it not be editable, right?

Kevan: City he/him

17-08-2021 12:32:34 UTC

Seems similar to the FAQ in that we might want to tinker harmlessly with the wording over time, and would notice and discuss someone adding controversial new advice to it. I’d be fine with making it non-gamestate and having a non-binding “last formally updated August 2021, please discuss with other players before making any significant changes” strapline at the bottom. But explicit gamestate would also work.

Josh: he/they

17-08-2021 13:13:33 UTC

Anyway, sk against on this as it’s close to the top of the queue, will reup in a day or two.