I don’t see it this way? I feel like I see revise as a gentle nudge to pass this again and against as “I don’t want this change.

I feel like the perfectionistic tendencies is not something we can fully solve mechanically.

I think revisions can still be useful. In some cases they are annoying (like in “5 O’Clock Somewhere”), which I think stems from it being used for something that’s not (at least imo) a fatal miswording. I think when it is used in a balance with passing-then-patching, it still works well.

The ruleset does actually say that players should vote REVISE on proposals “for which they agree with the general idea behind the proposal, but disagree with the details or with the exact wording”, which is what we’re seeing on Five O’Clock Somewhere. Nobody’s currently saying that the proposed rule is fatally broken or exploitable, just that the wording isn’t perfect - so we should wait for EternalServerError to personally write a second draft, and take another 24-48 hours on it.

I think the obligation issue Josh mentions is the biggest problem with Revisions. Not only the pressure on the proposer to resubmit the same idea again instead of doing something else, but also on the rest of the group to patiently wait for that to happen (which it may not!). For an idea like happy hours, it feels like the REVISE votes have put the concept into a moratorium - if another player has a great idea for a general special-offer mechanism, or some additional effect of happy hours, they’re expected to hold that back and wait to see if EternalServerError will withdraw and repropose the idea.

if another player has a great idea for a general special-offer mechanism, or some additional effect of happy hours, they’re expected to hold that back and wait to see if EternalServerError will withdraw and repropose the idea

hmmmm, I hadn’t really thought of it like that. tentative CoV to

CoV cause that.

I think it’s useful to send the signal of “good idea but needs work” vs “don’t event like the idea”

Noting in the current revisions rule prevents others from being the ones to submit the revisions

Even though I’m caught in the middle of this on 5 O’ Clock Somewhere I’m not sure where I lean yet. I like the option to vote revise to get a slot back and redraft now vs. waiting for an admin to fail the proposal at a later date and being stuck there. At this point I’m one vote away from meeting quorum so I figured I’d rather wait and see what happens than vote revise now, redraft and then wait another 24 hours.

That being said, it does seem that the vote to revise could be a potential abuse. Used as a political move to block someone’s slot for a longer period of time.

After having read my comment I’m voting because of the secondary outcomes mentioned.

[eternalservererror] Proposals can also enact if they have more FOR votes than AGAINST after 48 hours, so Five O’Clock Somewhere is likely to pass a few hours from now, even if no further votes are changed or cast on it.

Recusant

I don’t think this will sway the overall vote, but as Recusant votes were invited through Discord I feel obliged to voice my strong opposition to the premise that perfectionism is a problem to be solved. If anything, I think recent dynasties have been far too lax with poorly drafted rules that don’t do anything like what they’re intended to; it’s a big part of why I haven’t vibed with many of them.

My preferred approach to playing nomic is to apply the rules strictly literally and, ideally, look for interesting exploits in them. This is not really possible if the ruleset is internally inconsistent, or so badly written that it obviously doesn’t work as intended. In those cases, the only reasonable resolution is to figure out what was meant to happen and fix it by CFJ. I think that is profoundly uninteresting.

I appreciate that this is not a unanimously held opinion, and that some (perhaps most) players would rather treat each dynasty as a collaborative game design exercise, following the spirit rather than the letter of the rules and opposing and reversing exploits on principle. But the fact that not all opinions are unanimously held is why we vote on things.

I do have some reservations about the clunkiness of the revision mechanism, but if it’s to be removed altogether I think it needs to be replaced with something that allows the same or more proofreading and oversight, such as a significant lengthening of the edit window. My Overton-window-pushing suggestion for that would be something like 18-24 hours, to give anyone playing on the typical once-per-day cadence a chance to point out mistakes as they can with a REVISE vote.

[qenya] I very much share your view of how Nomic should be played, but would have said that this kind of perfectionism (voting to send back a proposal because it said “once per day” instead of “once per round”, rather than letting it sit in the ruleset for a while two until we fixed it) was the enemy of interesting and clever exploits!

Yeah, that’s a fun one; I’ve never been accused of being too in the can for conventional gameplay before!

My experience is that perfectionism results in fewer scam opportunities, not more, and that asking for a more rigourously scrutinised ruleset to enable scams is, to borrow a turn of phrase, a bit like bombing for peace.

I still think revisions have their place, and it’s interesting to me that the “delay” argument comes up when, at the same time, we have the idea that the pace of Proposals need not be rushed (we did recently bump up Popular enactment time to be 24 hours from 12.)

though it seems it will be a token vote.

I think I’ve fallen for the bait of perfectionism a bit too much myself.