Sunday, August 08, 2021

Proposal: [Special Case] put down the hammer, we need a screwdriver

SK’d.  - Jumble

Adminned at 09 Aug 2021 16:02:30 UTC

If https://blognomic.com/archive/special_case_dont_force_players_to_use_slack was enacted, repeal “No Collaboration [Inactive] [Rare]”.

this may be an unpopular opinion, but i like talking to other people about this game!

Comments

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 01:30:18 UTC

I think technically the title of the rule is still “No Collaboration” but the intent here is clear enough its probably not a problem.

Will definitely be voting for this. Playing in a game where I can’t privately chat with people seems a fun change of pace. Playing in a game where we can’t talk about the dynasty on the slack at all feels very dry and I would just choose to not play any such dynasty.

Janet: she/her

09-08-2021 03:07:47 UTC

against. If that proposal passes, the will of the people is to mandate discussion on the blog during no collaboration. I see no reason to deny that option to a future dynasty.

lemon: she/her

09-08-2021 03:18:22 UTC

if that proposal passes, it means No Collaboration is broken such that it can only be fixed by putting a stranglehold on player communication entirely! my understanding is that ais’ problem isn’t with the existence of the slack or the discord, it’s w/ the way that No Collaboration funnels info to them when its active

Janet: she/her

09-08-2021 03:27:03 UTC

I sympathize with your concern, but if a quorum wants No Collaboration to work that way, then it should work that way.

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 03:28:40 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 03:52:26 UTC

@Jason but if quorum would rather just be like “lets just remove the rule” why not remove the rule? hence the point of the second proposal.

From my perspective, not being able to use the slack or the discord while its up would make a dynasty no fun at all to play or run. I don’t think there would’ve been nearly as much fun memes and discussion from my dynasty had people not been allowed to chat about it in the slack (as forcing the discussions into thread slows stuff down and spreads them out)

If the case actually is that no collabs in its current form would cause many people not to want to play (which it seems like it would), and in its proposed form would also cause many people not to play (which it 100% would), its best to just remove it.

Janet: she/her

09-08-2021 04:05:01 UTC

Sure, you may see it that way (and I agree that it would have negative effects on the game compared to the status quo), but this proposal is just a referendum on “Do we regret the decision that we just made?” (at the time the queue reaches this), and I don’t support that on principle. If the proposal was just to unconditionally repeal No Collaboration, I would vote on the merits.

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 04:09:03 UTC

No. its not. Its simply going “the change you’re proposing would make this rule no fun at all to play with, so if people really don’t like the current form lets instead just remove the rule”

which, given the proposed change would make the rule no fun at all to play with; lets just instead remove the rule

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 04:11:01 UTC

people take pending proposals and expand upon their themes all the time, I really don’t see how this is any different

Janet: she/her

09-08-2021 04:16:22 UTC

> No. its not. Its simply going “the change you’re proposing would make this rule no fun at all to play with, so if people really don’t like the current form lets instead just remove the rule”

That’s not how I view it, but at this point it’s clear neither of us is going to change their mind.

Clucky: he/him

09-08-2021 04:26:02 UTC

I mean I can’t speak for Lemon as to why she proposed it. But I would’ve made a very similar proposal if she hadn’t beaten me to it for the exact reasons I posted.

Josh: he/they

09-08-2021 07:32:39 UTC

against No Collaboration is a fun mechanic, occasionally. Completely divorced from the issue of slack I’m opposed to this; factoring in the slack angle I’m more sympathetic. I think I’d have to default to keeping it as is and encouraging emperors to really only use No Collabs when it’s justified by the theme and mechanics they want to use.

Raven1207: he/they

09-08-2021 07:34:22 UTC

imperial

Josh: he/they

09-08-2021 07:40:20 UTC

It’s academic, as the relevant proposal has not been enacted.

Madrid:

09-08-2021 08:32:39 UTC

for

lemon: she/her

09-08-2021 08:47:21 UTC

against s/k, tho i think any admin could fail it regardless, unless it still counts as “specifying” a change to the ruleset even when that change can’t be applied :0

lemon: she/her

09-08-2021 08:48:20 UTC

oh, that’s cfj-specific! u learn something new every day :u

Kevan: City he/him

09-08-2021 08:59:59 UTC

Spending a slot to take another vote on something is fine, if you think people might have missed an angle on it the first time around.

Looks like there are three angles on the current No Collaboration rule allowing chat in #general and #currentdynasty:

* Players who don’t use real-time chat at all won’t get to hear it.
* Players who don’t use real-time chat much will have to comb through 24 hours of conversations on #general to see whether two players briefly declared an alliance at any point.
* Players who use real-time chat want to be able to talk freely about the game and its proposals.

There are some obvious corners to cut off there: removing #general would make sense, and we could restrict the discussion ban to the actual kinds of things that would normally be raised privately (where players make a deal that they don’t want others to know about).