My only concern is the reverse: a cabal of Idle Drafters pooling to boost or sink an active Drafter. I wonder if we could have some sort of opt-in where each Drafter can specify to exclude (or maybe include would be shorter) specific Idle Drafters from creating Reviews for their Draft.

Well, if a pool of idle Drafters decides to boost an active Drafter, the boosted Drafter wouldn’t have a reason to exclude the reviews.

Perhaps there should be a delay before idle reviews influence scoring, so that if there’s an attempt to flood the reviews there will be time to pass a proposal or CFJ to cancel them out.

On another topic, I might need to discuss how Fair Play applies to my vote on this proposal, due to the “Bucky clause” which started at Agora but has been mentioned at BlogNomic a couple of times. The context is that Bucky attempted to participate in Agora without ever actually registering or becoming a player, and I responded to that by trying to create rules in Agora that allowed nonplayers to participate in as many contexts as possible where it wouldn’t break things, and/or modifying existing rules to remove restrictions to players when doing so would be sensible. Eventually Bucky took an idle dynastic action in BlogNomic via exploiting a loophole in the dynastic rules of the time, leading to some controversy, and the “Bucky clause” ended up getting invoked at BlogNomic even though it wasn’t actually part of the original definition (the story is at <a >Ghosts of Winters Past</a>).

Some time later, when cross-nomic agreements were being banned in Fair Play, the whole Bucky clause situation came up, apparently without people fully remembering the details. It’s unclear to me whether the Fair Play rule in question is meant to bar the Bucky clause from being triggered at BlogNomic, because it’s unclear whether it’s an actual agreement (and if so, who is involved – I don’t have an explicit agreement with Bucky to get anything in return for the rules changes, and don’t know whether or not Bucky has reacted any differently as a consequence).

It’s been many years since the Bucky clause was invoked at either Agora or BlogNomic, but if it’s still valid, it would force me to vote FOR unless there was something seriously wrong with the proposal (despite being primarily a self-imposed restriction, it has a lot of aesthetic value for me and I would be disappointed if I had to break it). If doing that is barred by Fair Play, it would leave a question as to what restrictions Fair Play would put on my vote.

Potentially, Idle Drafters could simply leave Feedback instead of Reviews, where Feedback does not have an included scoring mechanic?

Feedback being a placeholder name, of course. Suggested as a solution to the issue JonathanDark proposed.

Sorry for the broken link in my previous comment – it should be https://blognomic.com/archive/ghosts_of_winters_past

I’d also be open to having Feedback, and maybe a mechanism for the active Drafters to vote on whether or not the Feedback should be included for any type of score.

in favor of this idea