Is there a general question attached to this around the consideration of the extent to which we should allow the ruleset (particularly the dynastic rules) to compel idle players? Obviously in this dynasty we had pokes delete their account over this exact fear; is a proposal like this just accelerating the possibility that Cuddlebeam and other future optimal players will delete their accounts as a way of going ‘super-idle’ to circumvent these measures?

There is a fair argument that I should have been sanctioned for taking Cuddlebeam up on their offer, had it resulted in my victory (“A Soul should not trade actions in BlogNomic for favors or compensation outside of BlogNomic” - giving an idle player 20% of the private decision on the theme of the dynasty could be construed as a ‘favour or compensation outside of BlogNomic). Maybe that clause needs a bit of bulking up. I think on balance I’m mildly opposed to tightening the ruleset’s grip on idle players; you should be able to chose not to play the game. I think the ruleset should allow idle souls to become unidle and should allow existing gamestate values to be preserved and manipulated if necessary, and that’s about it.

Privately advising a player on effective tactics for the current dynasty sounds like someone who’s still playing BlogNomic, rather than someone who has chosen not to play BlogNomic.

And in most dynasties that’s fine, this is only a Rare Special Case rule. The spirit of “No Collaboration” is that players can’t share information or collaborate privately on strategies, for whatever Imperial reason: I’d say that me now turning to Pokes (or Bucky, or any absent player) and asking “so hey, you’re a strong Nomic player, can you see any good loopholes right now? And have active players revealed any information to you this dynasty?” would go against that, and should be made explicitly against No Collaboration.

Discouraging private conversation doesn’t compel the idle player to do anything, and if they break the rule unwittingly it’s not a problem for the game. The only compulsion I can see is “Souls who were part of the conversation should make a post to the blog”, which we needn’t ask of idle/non players if the recipient has already disclosed it.

But that doesn’t get at the core of the question. You say ‘pokes or Bucky’ but there’s a material difference between those two people; your rule does nothing to prevent contact with pokes, and nor can it, as the ruleset has no power to compel non-players.

Your elaboration on the Cuddlebeam scenario purportedly ‘sounds like someone who’s still playing BlogNomic’ but that’s literally not how the ruleset defines ‘someone who’s still playing BlogNomic’. That’s not a definition we should be lazily changing: if we want to change the contract that ruleset makes with players then it should be systemic and informed, not slapdash and piecemeal.

The only version of this that makes any sense is shifting the responsibility to the active player.

By formally retiring as a player I’d expect Pokes to be back in the “people who are not yet Souls” zone. Under the current rule, if Pokes was considering rejoining BlogNomic later in the dynasty, No Collaboration would not let me talk to them privately about the game.

I don’t read No Collaboration as compelling absent players to do anything, or preventing them from doing anything, it’s just imposing consequences if they do.

I am certainly not amending the definition of who and who isn’t playing BlogNomic. I’m suggesting that if teaming up with an idle player to strategise and learn anything they discovered before they went idle feels like collaboration, the rule called “No Collaboration” could also cover that.

I mean, you’re doing both; you’re amending the way that No Collaboration prevents collaboration, but you’re also changing the way that idleness works in a way that sets an awful precedent.

This could trivially be sidestepped with minor wording changes, had it been possible to engage in it.

If there’s a trivial minor wording change which also gives the systemic and informed solution you were asking for just before the edit window closed, what is it? Do you just want “the Souls who were part of the conversation” updated to put all onus on the active player, when an active player discusses tactics with an idle one, so that the idle player can be and remain oblivious?

Too intrusive.

Kevan, I raised this issue when there were two and a half hours left of the edit window; your implied accusation of bad faith here is unfair and a little odious.

Have you considered that, for example, you are friends with idle-player and former-emperor Viv, and that any time the game comes up in conversation with her you’ll have to declare it under this rule? Have you considered that several of us are friends with very, very idle player Holly, and occasionally chat about the game with her? Have you considered that this change requires me to make a declaration post when my wife asks me what’s going on in ‘that Blog game’? Have you considered that some players of BlogNomic also play games occasionally with Agora or Infinite Nomic players, and under this change can’t answer questions or participate in conversations about BlogNomic without declaring it? Have you considered that none of those people have consented to having their private conversations disclosed on a public blog, and none of them can opt out of having those conversations disclosed?

This is a bad change, implemented badly. You should withdraw it.

No bad faith intended, I mean that I took your call for a “systemic and informed solution” to mean that any fix was outside the scope of the remaining edit window and needed a longer discussion with more players. So I didn’t rush to respond, and was disappointed to then be criticised for not engaging on what need only have been a minor wording change.

No, I hadn’t closely considered those questions because that’s the first time they’ve been raised. They are good questions! Thank you! I’d also wonder whether people are applying the current No Collaboration rule in the same conversational settings, and checking ahead of time whether any of these people are intending to join BlogNomic any time soon.

The two main dials we can turn here are “who we can talk to about the game” and “what ‘talking about the game’ is”. It seems like we should probably tighten up the latter so that general conversations are fine, that it’s only discussion that helps an active player to get ahead that needs ruling out. If we did that, I think I’d be okay with the “who” dial covering non-players: the “disclosing what information was discussed” requirement would only be a summary of the information that advantaged a player.

But it does depend on what we see as the purpose of No Collaboration, and I’m actually not sure what the consensus is. Is it meant to force everyone to play the dynasty by themselves, with any teamplay being out in the open, or is it just to stop backchannel negotiation of actions and secrets between active (including almost-active, unidling later this dynasty) players?

And withdrawn.

I feel like I pushed to get the issues in this taken seriously and responded, where possible, as quickly as I could; this might be an issue with the 4 hour window, which isn’t long enough to do much but long enough to create the illusion that a substantial discussion might be possible.

I’m sorry for having escalated in tone; that was wrong of me, and represents some frustration regarding not having been able to make my point in a way that could have led to it being fixed.

I agree with the nature of the issue and would support a different solution to it.

People are avoiding talking privately about too much, right now. The special case rule was coopted to prevent people discussing how to counter Brendan’s Malign dictatorship, which is about the core and special case rules regarding emperors, not the dynastic gameplay. Making a dynasty’s theme be meta-dynastic shouldn’t have changed that, but it seems to have done. I’m all for repealing the rule, at this point, not making it stronger.

But yes, my main objection was on Josh’s point. I will continue to enjoy talks with my niece about the game, though she’s an idle player (with no intent to return in this dynasty).