Thursday, September 20, 2018

Oh yeah, that was why

Idling out. Catch you in another three years, maybe

Comments

Kevan: Oracle he/him

20-09-2018 16:46:14 UTC

Not sure what that was, there, but if it was disapproval of a dynasty using casual rule language, there’s room to overhaul that - we’re just following each other’s lead and are, significantly, without Emperor right now. I don’t think it’s a given that a full quorum prefer it.

I know I’ve personally been voting some casual ruletext through from new players on the grounds that I didn’t think the wording was too egregious, and that it wasn’t worth the risk of discouraging them from making proposals at all. My vague long game is to wave that kind of thing through and quietly improve it as part of a later proposal.

Josh: he/him

20-09-2018 22:27:10 UTC

Oh, it’s not about mutable language - I’ve abused that enough in the past not to be a serious hypocrite about it.

The bigger problem is - how do I put this? We’re playing a game of legislative beggar-thy-neighbour here. That’s the point, and it’s a fun point! But there are aspects of it that I’ve never liked it, and which have always frustrated me, and which have often ended up pushing me away from the game.

Case in point: this CFJ deliberately or not - but I suspect deliberately - massively fucks with me. By declaring my current gamestate illegal it will, when it passes, make my actions based on the current gamestate also retroactively illegal, meaning that for this entire NGE round of the game I’m prevented from doing anything. The two Hunt actions I’d already taken may be illegal as the DICE count is based on Brawn; if I fight then it’s Schrodingers how much firepower I’m contributing (which could also make the next NGE retroactively illegal); effectively, there is nothing I can do, because all my best moves may turn out to be made retroactively illegal at some point when I can’t do anything about them. This proposal is a figleaf that does nothing to fix the issue. A full round out puts paid to any notion I might have had that I could catch up to the leaders.

I said “deliberately or not but I suspect deliberately”. There’s a few reasons why I suspect deliberately. One, it seems to have been timed such that it will time out at exactly the time of the next NGE, which is what makes all of the above true. Two, Kevan, you’ve been around long enough to have thought about the consequences of retroactivity before putting into a votable. Three, it’s being pushed through by the two players with the most to gain from spiking the wheels of anyone who is engaged, first and second place respectively (I don’t expect collusion; I do think I spot complementary self-interested calculation). Four, card hasn’t yet learned the virtue of <a >sometimes at least pretending</a> that self-interest isn’t motivating you (kind of a giveaway vote).

But sixth, and most importantly, I suspect deliberately because that’s how you’re supposed to play this game. It’s legislative beggar-thy-neighbour! If you’re not beggaring a neighbour then you’re not doing it right. I don’t begrudge the game for the way it’s meant to be played, and Lord knows I’ve done it enough myself. I just don’t find it fun when it’s this naked, this cynical, this artlessly calculating - a wedge issue that’s for sure going to attract no votes that aren’t self-interested, in a quiet dynasty - and, yes, this directly targeted at me specifically. So I’m removing myself from the equation, because I’m a pretty strong believer that if something’s not fun then I shouldn’t do it.

Josh: he/him

20-09-2018 22:28:33 UTC

Kevan: Oracle he/him

20-09-2018 23:46:49 UTC

Ah, it wasn’t intended with any harshness. I was expecting the two DICE5 Hunt actions to be regarded as illegal (because you had no way of taking a DICE5 Hunt action, only a DICE4 one), leaving you free to retake whatever actions you wanted.

Nothing intended by the timing, either, which I honestly hadn’t calculated. You’d rightly said “Suspect that this may need a cfj.” twelve hours earlier, and nobody had posted one overnight, so my first action that morning was to quickly raise that CfJ - leaning towards the “muscle from food does not pass to an unrelated ape in the next generation” interpretation because it made much more narrative sense, and consequently seemed more likely that other people had been reading the rule that way. (It’s still a big flaw in the CfJ system that the call can only offer a single solution.)

The only deliberate slight beggaring was Wrestle Poodles - getting in first with a middling public offer of compensation to discourage a more generous one from anyone else. Although it’d probably have been worth one Legacy point, and could have been locked in by proposing to make non-inherited traits permanent, which isn’t bad, really.

Shame we haven’t had more votes on the CfJ, to see how the majority were actually reading the non-inheritance rule.

card:

21-09-2018 00:24:27 UTC

Josh, your link is broken.

As for the virtue, I’ve done that when I have the time to be virtuous but recently I’ve been pressed for it. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t make a CfJ fixing that particular issue. I’m not really sure why you didn’t make a CfJ fixing the fact that you’d be out for a round after you saw Kevan’s. You voted on his an hour after it was posted, so while you disagreed with the fix, you didn’t offer any solution of your own that didn’t “fuck with you”; I probably would’ve voted for it.

Zaphod:

21-09-2018 05:36:08 UTC

@Josh—Sad to see you go. I had a quick look at your user page and saw that you started in 2005, so as a new player I want to say thank you for playing a role in shaping such a cool project. Hope everything is good for you IRL. Take care, Josh.