Monday, March 18, 2024

Proposal: monomethyl-p-aminophenol hemisulfate

Reached Quorum, 5-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 19 Mar 2024 04:43:33 UTC

Add the following as new Upgrade Benchmarks:

* A Snap on which, after 48 hours, every Private Criteria claimed by another Seeker was Unsatisfied
* A Snap which meets every Public Criteria
* A Snap which includes a found instance of the BlogNomic username of another Seeker

Add the following as Public Criteria in the rule Criteria:

* A Snap which includes a specific named entity that had its own Wikipedia page at Mon 18/03/24—09:00 UTC
* A Snap in which at least one article of clothing worn by the posting Seeker at the time that the Snap was taken is visible
* A Snap that contains a message to the viewer

Another try at this, as the 5 day limit is starting to chafe


Clucky: he/him

18-03-2024 19:40:30 UTC

What does “Found Instance” mean? Feel like I could just write “Josh” on the ground and that would count…

Josh: he/they

18-03-2024 19:51:32 UTC

Interesting question! I’m sure a future CfJ could be interestingly debated on that point.

(I am increasingly disinterested in writing airtight rules… The need for every edge case to be squared away in every proposal just sucks the life out of the game for me. If you think the argument could stand up then why not try it and find out?)

Chiiika: she/her

18-03-2024 20:11:57 UTC

I really do agree scribbling “Josh” do count as a found instance; but tbh I feel we picking up paces together isn’t a bad thing tbh…  for

Kevan: City he/him

18-03-2024 20:57:34 UTC

To me, knowingly ambiguous rules take life out of the present game and move it into that imagined future CfJ/DoV debate. “No Cooperation” is currently doing that for me - that it will probably matter less how I play the dynasty than how well I can argue and mantle barter in some I-choose-to-ignore-No-Cooperation DoV.

The debate starts when we choose to start talking about it.


Josh: he/they

18-03-2024 21:49:00 UTC

@Kevan You have mentioned your reluctance around No Cooperation several times; are you going to propose to fix it?

I’ll probably not run the gauntlet of trying to find the exact wording that will not-quite please everybody, so if you want it changed then you should probably grasp the nettle.

Kevan: City he/him

18-03-2024 22:28:39 UTC

It’s hard to know what a fixed version of the rule should allow and disallow, really, as aside from yourself people haven’t seemed that interested in talking about it. Maybe I’ll try proposing an iteration tomorrow to see what feedback it gets.

JonathanDark: he/him

18-03-2024 23:52:18 UTC

I’m down to pick up the pace. I have a feeling that very few things will actually be challenged unless it’s obvious shenanigans.


Clucky: he/him

19-03-2024 00:40:20 UTC