Ultimately not everyone is going to play the game in the same way, and that is okay. So any sort of rule is going to need to allow for a range in what is and isn’t okay.

I’m also not too sure how much what is and isn’t okay should change per dynasty.

To me, things like “yeah you can try hard this one with your spreadsheets” or “This dynasty really needs active participation from all players, no lazy modeing this one” should really be exceptions to the rules that can be handled on a dynastic rule basis when and if they come up

I still feel like this is (or should be) covered by just generally reading the room, so long as players are talking about what they’re doing in the game. You can judge how competitive someone is by their game stats and their voting activity, and attitudes to rule strictness should be apparent conversationally.

I think last dynasty was just a bit off-kilter from the effects of No Cooperation, which may have been dampening the table talk.

I’d like to think that we should be able to read the room, but there’s been multiple dynasties in recent memory where this has gone awry. I know it feels cumbersome to have an actual rule around this, but my intention is to have it prompt more open discussion on peoples’ intentions, not to be too heavy-handed about it.

I can’t be against this until I’ve seen how it turns out in practice

I don’t know what other examples you’re thinking of from recent dynasties, but mismatches of interpretation seem like an inherent part of the game of Nomic, and should be part of the fun rather than something to try to eliminate in advance. (And it’s not just a simple slider of “strictness”, on rule interpretation - people will have different ideas about what a word actually means, how to interpret a particular ambiguity, whether some type of logic or mathematics can be applied, etc.)

The issues last dynasty around do-overs can’t be reduced to a simple “I am generous and will always support do-overs” versus “I am strict and never will”; I’d guess that most people’s view if written down would be something like “I’d support an early do-over for a new or trailing player, but not one from a leading player in endgame” with an unstated and subjective curve between those two points. Which might be informative in the extremes, but not in the majority of cases.

So a mild against on all that, moreso on it being a big core rule that requires proposals to operate.

The end of last dynasty was bruising for me. I may be in too reactive of a mindset to evaluate this.

I don’t think this really hurts, but I think that it does introduce a little more overhead for a new player having to go thru the core section. Hopefully, that overhead is outweighed by us players actually using it, which should help the new players adjust to each of us better.

I didn’t really follow last dynasty so I’m missing context, but I don’t like the idea of having a piece of text dictate my playstyle. yes, last dynasty got heated, but I don’t think situations like that are the ruleset’s job to prevent

It doesn’t dictate playstyle. It’s “nonbinding advisory statements” that gives you hints on how some players intend to play. If you don’t intend to play the same way, that’s always your choice, but it’s there for informational purposes.

because this is interesting