Some dynasties have had a pinned discussion post to talk things out in comments to it, so I think it’s alright.

people like to discuss the dynasty on the slack

if you don’t want to use the slack that is your call, but preventing dynasty discussing there I feel like would be unfair to the people who want to discuss is there. its not being intentionally exclusionary there, anyone can find and participate in the discussion (whereas if say, there was a blognomic facebook group that 90% of people don’t know about, using that would be a way to exclude people, hence why you can’t)

As long as No Collaboration exists in its current form and is activated, it isn’t my call – important information that everyone’s meant to have access to (what pools exist) may be there and only there, thus forcing me to check it.

then check it. afterall, similar discussions could be happening in any dynasty

the point of no collaborations isn’t so that people only have to check the blog. its just to prohibit private conversations. two people chatting on twitter could be considered a private conversation as no one is likely to find it. two people chatting on an official blognomic discussion forum in a public easily accessible channel is not a private conversation

If No Collaboration is turned off, there isn’t a reason to check anything other than the blog – pooling discussed on Slack would presumably be discussed in PM, so you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway.

It isn’t about what is and isn’t private, but about what you do and don’t have to do in order to be able to participate without an information disadvantage.

(This also isn’t about the point of No Collaboration. It’s about an unintended side effect – turning it on gives an advantage for checking Slack that wouldn’t be there if it were turned off.)

but regardless of the status of the no collaborations rule, there is plenty of dynastic discussion that happens in public, on the slack. I don’t see why the no collaborations rule creates this advantage/disadvantage

the tricky thing about this rule is that it’s called “no collaboration”, but what it really limits is communication, and i think talking to the other players about the game is part of what makes it fun. on the blog and wiki, there’s no centralized location for discussion, and it becomes very easy to lose random blog posts to the flow of actual gameplay

i think we benefit from a place for discussion thats separate from the stream of gameplay, basically

The problem I’m seeing is if explicit deals get made in public on the Slack – people who don’t use the Slack wouldn’t know about them. If you want to “PM” someone about a trade or the like, and No Collaboration is on, you need to do it in public so that everyone can see it – but doing it on the Slack means that non-Slack users can’t see it.

“No Collaboration” has the side effect of forcing all discussion about the dynasty generally to become public, not just deals between players (although that probably isn’t the primary intent behind the rule). So I guess the issue here is balancing the downsides of that side effect with the main intention behind the special case rule.

given how these channels can easily get hours of unrelated discussion overnight.

@Kevan so why allow discussion on non blog sources at all? Even in a dynasty with no collabs turned off, people unwilling to check other sources would still be excluded

In the one dynasty this rule was on for, there was a ton of supplemental discussion in the slack that gave it a bunch of character. Without that discussion it would’ve been a far dryer dynasty

if this passes, it sets a precedent that No Collaboration disallows any discussion about the dynasty between players *anywhere* but the blog. i don’t see a world in which that doesn’t have a reductive effect on players’ enjoyment & enthusiasm about the dynasty!! what’re we gonna do, have lengthy 70-comment chats in the comment sections of random proposals? how is that better or easier to use than a chat client?

@lemon no see people are totally gonna enjoy having to browse five different threads, including bookmarking old threads that still have ongoing discussions on them, rather than realizing that most of that discussion is contained to one central place that is easy to follow along /s