Forbidding the first column may be fair.  Forbidding the first three columns is a very aggressive legislative attack against my plot.

I think three columns is fine: The usual defensive setup is two columns of usable Crop and the one column of defensive Crop. You shouldn’t be able to circumvent the defenses…

coppro told me to vote against this.

This looks like a cleverly disguised bribe proposal. The majority of players (a little over 50%) are using much the same formation, and this proposal is designed to reward people using that formation and punish players who aren’t. People like me using less usual strategies are being left out. It’s the classic benefit-just-over-half-the-players-to-hurt-the-rest, and I’d probably veto it if I were in charge of the dynasty and someone else pointed that out. (I wasn’t completely decided on this until I saw mideg’s comment, and realised the implications. If all this does is helps the “usual defensive setup”, it’s massively unfair; it’s reached the point of “if you find a way to exploit what other people are doing, no matter, we’ll just make it best again via proposal”.)

ais: Maybe the “usual defensive setup” is there for a reason.  We’re not saying that you can’t cross plots at all, just that you have to do it in the rightmost 3 columns.

Well, being able to release Zs into the first column is almost impossible to defend against.

Deciding how many columns should be protected is done by the majority.

Also, I do not see how this makes ur defensive setup any less efficient. As I see it, this proposal punishes not those using unusual defenses, but those using the attack scheme Bucky obviously currently works on.

It punishes Bucky’s investment into his zombies, which cost him resources which could have been better spent as

This is not an exercise in trying to develop a perfect game. We don’t go “oh, that rule was broken, please don’t abuse it”. We go “oh, that rule was broken, well done, your turn”.

This doesn’t punish or benefit certain defensive setups, as far as I can tell (or at least not that strongly), it just prevents the massively unfair offensive tactic of placing a dozen Carcasses next to someone else’s house, or one or two boss ones, that not only demands a very specific setup to stop, but also always succeeds if the defender happens to not log on at the right moment.

ais: Bucky’s strategy benefits me from what I can tell, and I’m actually set up reasonably well to defend against this; I assure you this was not motivated by strategic considerations.

coppro: the whole point of a nomic is that the players can change the rules at any time and for any reason. I’d vote for a refund for Bucky, though. To be honest, I didn’t realize he had that many carcasses that far left.

@Coppro: I thought this is about finding broken things and abuse them before someone else sees that hey are broken. Bucky was close, but now Pb saw what he was doing and fixes the broken issue. Where’s the problem?

I’d second a refund (to a point, maybe 80%) for Bucky, if he so wishes.

Against per ais. It’s a little late in the dynasty to stop what is currently a legitimate strategy.

Ienpw: I would agree with you except that this isn’t an old strategy.  It’s a very recent strategy that so far Bucky is the only person to try to use.

Take the last dynasty for example, ais pulled his scam, then we closed the hole (but not before I pulled the same scam).  It was a recent strategy that was closed because 1 person exploited it.  How is this any different?  We see one person exploiting an unintended hole, and we make a proposal to fix it.  The only difference is that this time it’s going in before the strategy actually does anything.

@Yoda: the issue is that you can do the same to every other strategy too, and then there’s no incentive to try to play well at all as you’ll just get smacked down as a result.

If a nomic continuously passes sloppy rules then I think it is be good for it to learn a lesson.