Sunday, August 08, 2021

Proposal: [Special Case] Apple, Nomicnaut.

Vetoed. - Jumble

Adminned at 09 Aug 2021 16:01:45 UTC

Create a new Special Case rule called “The Blognomic Apple.” with:

Blognomic recognizes that a game of nomic called Agora exists, operating on the mailing lists described at https://agoranomic.org/.

The Blognomic Apple exists.

At the moment that it is true for Agora that the Blognomic Apple can be immediately transferred from Blognomic to Agora, then the Blognomic Apple is immediately transferred from Blognomic to Agora, and this rule is repealed.

If it is the year 2022, this rule is repealed.

I’d like to try this! An internomic transfer! Why? Because it would be cool and different! Novelty! This isn’t really related to the dynasty itself, but BN is pretty much always involved in dynastic stuff, so right now seems nearly as good as any other time.

Giving myself a four-month margin of time to try to pull this off on the Agoran side of things.

Comments

Josh: he/they

08-08-2021 21:20:41 UTC

against No thank you

Raven1207: he/they

08-08-2021 21:26:26 UTC

for

I’ve seen Agora and IN do it

Lulu: she/her

08-08-2021 21:40:46 UTC

veto Really deserves its own Dynasty.  Not this one, though.

Clucky: he/him

08-08-2021 21:54:25 UTC

against

literally zero good has ever come out of agora mixing with blognomic please just let us play out game pretending they don’t exist

Seventy-Fifth Trombone:

08-08-2021 23:59:01 UTC

I am not an active player and this vote counts for nothing. But I follow the Twitter and saw this, so I just came here to say:

against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against  against

onedoesnotsimplywalkintomordor.jpg

ais523:

09-08-2021 00:24:40 UTC

This has been vetoed, so there’s no point in voting. However, I can see at least three arguments against this proposal:

a) Most importantly, this isn’t the sort of gameplay that most BlogNomic players are interested in, and doesn’t even inspire interesting gameplay at Agora either (the most likely implementation would basically end up creating “an apple previously owned by BlogNomic” – what’s Agora supposed to do with one of those?). This is enough to reject (even veto) the proposal in its own right.

Nonetheless, I’m interested in issues with proposals just as a general topic, so I decided to look for some more minor issues:

b) If this were a Special Case rule, it’s highly likely that someone would turn it off, making the experiment fail to function properly. It would only really work as a core rule, but it’s so out there compared to the other core rules that it wouldn’t really be a good fit for our current format. Maybe in a dynasty dedicated to this sort of thing, it could be a dynastic rule, but I get the impression that that would be an unpopular dynasty theme.

c) The actual wording either doesn’t work at all, or else it’s scammable in a very dangerous way. (I’m leaning towards “doesn’t work at all”.) The problem is that there’s no mechanism given for what BlogNomic actually does to perform the transfer – so either there’s no way for it to happen, or else the Agoran rule would provide the mechanism, forcing BlogNomic to follow it (which is potentially problematic for obvious reasons). The mechanism that’s apparently specified in this rule is comparable to creating a rule at Agora which states that it makes edits to the BlogNomic wiki, which also wouldn’t work because rules are legal constructs that exist in the abstract and (as a consequence) don’t actually edit websites, so BlogNomic wouldn’t notice the changes. (Also, repealing a rule defining an apple is quite different in nature from transferring that apple to another nomic.)

ais523:

09-08-2021 00:39:25 UTC

…and thinking about it some more: in order for the apple to come from BlogNomic, it needs to be defined in BlogNomic’s rules forever; if it’s BlogNomic’s apple, and BlogNomic repeals it, it disappears. (If you just define it at Agora separately, to stop it disappearing if BlogNomic repeals it, then the fact that it comes from BlogNomic is irrelevant – it’s purely Agoran at that point.)

That means that we’ll end up with something cluttering the core (or at least interdynastic) rules forever, just so that Agora can have a apple that it doesn’t particularly want or need (after all, it doesn’t do anything). This doesn’t seem like a great trade for either nomic.

This has been an interesting thought experiment, but it doesn’t really work as something to actually do in practice.

Chiiika: she/her

09-08-2021 03:40:04 UTC

against No, frick it.

Kevan: City he/him

09-08-2021 08:13:25 UTC

against Recording a vote against creating a thing for Agorans to care about where “brigading BlogNomic” is one way for them to modify it.

Darknight: he/him

09-08-2021 12:26:18 UTC

against yes this was vetoed but I want to make my voice heard that we just do not need to tick off everyone else here for some dumb experiment. Heck, if trombone of all people pops up to voice an idle against something then it’s a bad idea for the health of our nomic. So please just stop with trying to get another nomic involved with how we want to play.