Hardly anyone opposed this last time round, and it has long had much support. Strongly recommend voting for.

Still yes

What do you mean in saying that amending core with less than quorum has “long had much support”? From a history of everyone who’s ever committed a vote on the issue (the 2021 proposal, the failed repeal a few months later, your repeal from two days ago), support for that seems to be a minority: nine players have preferred to have this clause in place, four have opposed it.

Core rules are important, they define the ongoing year-by-year game that we’re playing, and changes to them deserve at least a group consensus. If we’re finding that consensus difficult to achieve for some amendments (because new players feel uninformed, or inactive players are declining to idle, or it’s the weekend and people aren’t checking in), we should work harder to get there, rather than leaving those players behind and making the changes anyway.

per Kevan

[redtara] Your previous proposal did not fail due to any ‘outrageous and horrible’ rule. It had barely any ‘for’ votes as well and would have failed in any case.

Hi Summai,

In the case where one less person had voted against it, it would have passed.

Sincerely,
redtara

Dear redtara,

Congratulations for knowing how voting works.

Regards,
summai

Fuck me, serves me right for trying to explain my reasoning to you I guess.

Okay, I am actually against the contents of this proposal and want the exception rule to stay because I agree with Kevan. Why are you taking it so personally and being mean?

Can we take the heat down please? This is a pretty narrow issue on which a small number of people feel strongly and most don’t care. Kevan is right to point out that repealing it is a minority occupation, but summai, no-one is calling it outrageous and horrible either, so there’s really no need to be putting words into peoples’ mouths.

Let’s take a beat and keep an eye on what the actual stakes are here, which is to say: tiny.

I’m not putting words into peoples’ mouths.

How about an actual substantive critique against my proposal, for once?

Kevan has extensively argued in favour of keeping the exception. Isn’t that enough of a critique? Or do you want me to do it? If that’s the case I’ll just copy paste whatever Kevan has been saying.

If you have nothing to add, then just say that you have nothing to add. And in the meantime, don’t attack me for having more to say than you apparently do!

Yeah, I have nothing to add. Not all thoughts have to be original.

And I never attacked you. Just pointed out that the rule which you called outrageous and horrible had nothing to do with the failure of your previous proposal contrary to your claim. It was you who started being mean after that (actually before too, what even is this vote for vote game?)

I won’t be commenting on this post after this.

per Summai

I kind of feel awkward about the possibility of voting on this one. I do want it to pass, but we already had 2 days of discussion on this one with a lot of points raised on either side, so it feels iffy for a second one to be raised right as the first one times out.

This is a proposal where the author articulates no clear argument for why they see the change as a net positive (Redtara has only said that they consider the rule to be ironic and outrageous and horrible and that a repeal has long had much support) while flaming a new player into silence for not making their own substantive argument, and (from the “compelling reasons” CoV on Maximum Effort) a vote looks to have been bought.

To me, those are all reasons why the higher core bar is useful; it shouldn’t be possible to get a controversial core amendment over the line by being vague and discouraging discussion, and by buying one vote if you need to break a resulting low-interest stalemate. Not least because any such change can be reversed in full a dynasty or two later. The BlogNomic core is a better one when it’s being built through good faith discussion and genuine consensus.

Kevan, we may be reading different threads but this doesn’t look like last night’s discussion between summai and redtara was one-sided to me; I read a level of mutual antagonism which either party could have averted but which both chose to escalate into. In any case we should probably avoid inflaming it, no? As you say, good faith discussion and consensus is the goal, so let’s not pile in on taking sides or chucking around allegations of flaming (do they kids still use that term?).

The implication that a vote has been bought is interesting; I would expect voting on a core change to be separate from voting on a dynastic matter but I may be misreading that situation. At this stage I trust that everyone has enough information to make a decision on this one on the merits, disregarding the political miasma surrounding it. It’s currently 4-2 up, with an unvoted fifth votes in SingularByte in favour; whatever happens I think it can no longer be argued that redtara is wrong to say that this move has some support, but if it fails now then we can take that up next time this is proposed in six months or so.

Yes, we are reading this thread differently.

The separation of core and dynastic does seem like the crux here, and one that was also foregrounded at the end of last dynasty. Is BlogNomic a series of individual games of Nomic played under a meta ruleset, or is it one single game where everything interconnects? If a group differs on that perception, there’s a greater (and largely unarticulated) tension over individual core amendments or unidling metadynasty pushes, as different players see BlogNomic as being a different thing.

I don’t know if a meaningful compromise is even possible on that, or if it’s something that will just ebb and flow as BlogNomic moves through different eras and player bases.

This is certainly an issue where some group of people are likely to end up with a situation that they don’t want: one group having what they see as necessary changes getting held up or spiked against semi-idle player apathy, or another seeing free-wheeling core rule changes passed without proper scrutiny. It does feel like one where full compromise is impossible, but I guess the compromise position then has to be respecting the will of the majority, and committing to advancing your case respectfully and with a modicum of humility.

If this proposal times out without passing then unfortunately it will leave the waters a bit muddy: a tacit 5-2 suggests that the current clause is not supported, but doesn’t command enough opposition to overcome the clause itself as written. Fair enough, but I would hope that that would open some space for some creativity in ways in which the clause in question can be amended, and would leave its supporters clear that such an amendment may be advised in the spirit of a good faith approach to satisfying the intent of the current player-base.

Just to clarify the “bought vote” issue, my comment on Maximum Effort was referring to the fact that redtara and I have Cities in the same Region and so naturally we have a mutual interest in lowering the Effort it takes to pass Effortful Motions in Regional Development Forums. It had nothing to do with this issue.

[JonathanDark] Fair enough, Redtara switching from AGAINST to FOR either side of your own FOR vote here just stood out when I was catching up on the queue.

But I do think that Special Case rules should get a carve-out from this.