Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Voter apathy

Voting on some of the recently enacted proposals is down to two. Two votes cast! That’s rubbish.

Is it worth mentioning that I’ve got a great idea for a new dynasty?

I’ve never been a fan of metadynasies, but this isn’t entirely a revolt post - it’s more just a notice, I guess, that we’re loosing the majority of people to apathy. They clearly can’t think of a way to make the game interesting for themselves, so perhaps we’re better off focusing more tightly on what remaining cjhanges need to be made to the ruleset while winding the irrelevant stuff up quickly.

Comments

Kevan: he/him

29-03-2006 20:47:01 UTC

I’m sure you’d get an influx of old and new players, and greater enthusiasm from existing people, if a new Dynasty was started with a good theme and Emperor.

Relatedly, this is the first time I’ve come back to look at BlogNomic and the top entry hasn’t been a one-sentence this-is-not-suspicious wonder from Bucky.

Bucky:

29-03-2006 21:10:32 UTC

I think that if we make the elevtors easier to work an get a victory condition, we’ll have enough play mechanics to actually play.  I think this is why some of us left in the first place, so we should see some returning Gostaks.

Kevan: he/him

29-03-2006 21:15:29 UTC

For what it’s worth, and this is weary honesty rather than snarkiness, I found it very hard to build up any enthusiasm for this Metadynasty because I assumed it’d just end in some horrible great scam from you, so there wasn’t much point in actually reading the subgame rules or investing any time in play and strategy.

Part of that was because this is a Metadynasty, though, that a proper Dynasty would have more sentimental value to its players and a particularly weird semantic scam would be less well tolerated.

Bucky:

29-03-2006 21:18:27 UTC

Well, if you put it that way, I COULD end the m-dynasty by massive scam, but it wouldn’t be as fun.  I havn’t tried a hidden scam for the win for a while, and I don’t think I should.  However, I’m planning on pulling something on April 1st…

smith:

29-03-2006 21:47:55 UTC

For me, this metadynasty’s purpose was to fix major problems in the ruleset, so I have limited interest in the mechanics of the current round. I’ll get caught up now and decide whether I should participate or idle myself.

Rodney:

30-03-2006 00:11:50 UTC

I think that dynasties tend to have more apathy as they grow older. The only real way to fix this is to speed up the end of the dynasty, which is what my proposal does.

Angry Grasshopper:

30-03-2006 00:25:18 UTC

>Well, if you put it that way, I COULD end the m-dynasty by massive scam,

I stopped playing this dynasty because of this sort of thing. Not that I dislike a little bit of cloak and dagger in my games, but I really don’t find it enjoyable to play at what is essentially a game of protracted psychological warfare.

‘sides, I figure, if you’ve got ‘em, smoke ‘em. I don’t pretend to speak for anyone but myself, but if you’ve got some massive scams, play them and get them out of your system, so we can go back to a nice civilized game of Nomic around here.

< /rant >

Bucky:

30-03-2006 03:42:48 UTC

I took care of most of them in the Ruleset Draft, but I’m saving a few special ones for April Fools Day.

Bucky:

30-03-2006 04:59:11 UTC

Also, we’ve had a huge surge in proposals lately.

Josh: Observer he/they

30-03-2006 07:01:16 UTC

That’s a politician’s answer. We’ve only had a surge of proposals because they were all from the same three people, who took advantage of an easin of proposal restrictions. Not a symptom of rejuvinated interest, I’m afraid.