I mean, technically what I was doing somewhat(but not exactly) opposite Josh had did earlier in the dynasty. His Score 1 on everyone was something he could gain from because it allowed everyone else’s scores low than he could have a higher score or stalemate in an equilibrium. With my score 5 on everyone doesn’t really have the advantage to me because everyone else boost aheads while I could either boost with them or just get a couple of points. Since it’s unlikely for me to win, I might as well push everyone forward instead of pulling them behind me since it would ruin the spirit of the game.

Also, I’d like to add onto my previous message to say that I’m not trying to be like “Oh let’s pity for Raven”. I’m just trying to be a positive kingsman.

@Raven At no point in this dynasty have I been giving everyone a 1. My average golden score in-round has never dropped beneath 2.5. I don’t really appreciate being called out like that and I especially dislike being called out like that inaccurately.

That said I do find this to be somewhat over-targeted in much the same way.

[Raven] It wouldn’t make any meaningful difference to the leaderboard if you were scoring everyone 1 or scoring everyone 5: all you’re doing is sometimes nudging the medians around a little. If people wanted a higher median we could enact a rule change of “then add another 5”, without anyone having to type it out as a score nine times each round.

A player occasionally passing through to indiscriminately vote “don’t know, 5 points, ‘I like it’” on every Backronym doesn’t feel like a positive influence on a light social word game. It’s like playing Apples to Apples with someone picking an answer at random when it’s their turn to judge, and having nothing to say about it. I’d rather that you didn’t feel that you had to do this.

[Josh] This started off more nuanced, but it seemed worth a direct vote on how the group felt about Raven doing this, since he’s the only player doing it. Darknight switched to a more thoughtful scoring pattern as soon as someone objected to them voting 3 on everything, but Raven hasn’t done that yet, and from their comments so far here (if they think they’re doing the group a favour and that everyone appreciates it) they seem unlikely to.

I’d rather this be solved more algorithmically than personally. That’s why I had proposed a median in the first place, to suppress the outliers, which it should generally do.

It does, and autoscoring is an algorithmically neutral action; it’s not doing any harm or giving any benefit. Socially it’s meaningless to mildly annoying to receive “don’t care what you wrote here, 5 points” feedback, even if everyone else is getting it too.

If one player would rather not have to score or comment on other people’s Backronyms, and is only doing so because the rules require them to, we can lift that burden from them. They’re not losing anything, if that’s what they were going to do for the rest of the game. And other players can propose to go Passive if they feel the same.

This is the sort of tactical personal targeting that I’d expect to get vetoed.

don’t like how it is headed

[Bucky] Raven seems to be saying that they’ll keep doing this indiscriminate, uninterested scoring. How does it harm them (or anyone) to say they don’t have to, and that we’ll just skip them for the scoring count instead?

Currently Ravens passive play just results in the average rounding up rather than down . Seems harmless enough to not single him out like this

[Kevan] It removes Raven’s ability to start using discriminate scoring again.

If Raven continues to only score 5s, the most unfair outcome is that Raven only puts scores on some of the Backronyms.

Echoing Clucky’a message

Well the “round up” part I mean

Bucky said it best.

I am against this on a level of principle. If we want to (understandably) discourage this type of play (or the inverse) then I’d prefer a method that builds on the game in a healthy manner.

I do find singling out a player by name to be an unusual and inelegant step to take, and would rather follow an algorithmic approach, but Raven’s approach to BlogNomic is an extremely unusual one.

Given how they handled the heuristic nudge for players to include comments (checking that it would be legal to just post the same null comments on everything, and then doing that) any such approach seems like it’ll either be simple enough for Raven to ignore in the same way (we propose that players must spread their ratings across the full 1-5 range; so Raven perhaps starts voting 1 on the first Backronym they see, 2 on the second, etc.) or complex enough that it adds needless extra busywork for everyone else, in an otherwise simple game.

Raven hasn’t said anything here to suggest that they’d want to give meaningful ratings in future. I don’t know what their comment of “I’m just trying to be a positive kingsman” is meant to mean, but in context it sounds like they’re enjoying giving everyone an indiscriminate but benevolent +0.5 point boost each round, and intend to keep on doing that, rather than an intentional plan to snooze through the dynasty so that they can pivot to kingmaking somebody in the final round.

Perhaps I misread the room on how people were feeling about playing a simple social judging game where one player expresses no interest at all in the other players’ submissions. It seemed a good thing for the dynasty that Darknight began engaging with the game more after being called out for voting 3 on everything, and started posting thoughtful feedback when the rules prompted everyone to.

Cov

By “positive kingsman” I meant that having weird their final score would go higher because of a 5 and lower because of 1

Because even if it’s just the median, I’m still shifting everyone’s score higher based on which number ends up be the “middle”.

Sure, we understand how it affects the median. I just wasn’t sure what you meant by “kingsman” is in this context.

Do you intend to do score everything at 5 for the rest of the dynasty?

Kingsman as far as my board game/card game/social deduction game knowledge is someone who is usually in a position to either guaranteed to win or guaranteed lose but who’s able to still have influence over the winner.

That’s “kingmaker”, and by giving everyone the same score you are literally having no influence over who wins or loses.

This feels like a good discussion to have, so could we leave it open and not enact it until the next Proposal behind this one is close to being enactable?

The proposal behind this one has been withdrawn and can be resolved at any time.

That said, I will encourage other players to consider their votes on this.