Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:03 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able > to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well > this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones > that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for > sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're > likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider > in order to compute the current gamestate. > > It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder > it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement > will just overwrite it. Arcana *generally* doesn't have that strong an impact - an old CFJ can always be revisited, even if cited, and new CFJs have often said "that old one doesn't apply". And believe me, current judges are *very* ready to overturn or just ignore precedent that's somewhat old, that happens regularly. The reason this one is relevant is because voters, in the modern time, last week, voted FOR this Rules text, and so it's become current rules text. As I said, I can't speak for other voters' reasoning - no deals were made etc. - but there's all sorts of ways to go wrong in the rules by voting for unwise text, whether than unwise text is drawn from an ancient source or entirely new. Knowing about the old CFJs gives a *minor* advantage, in that when something comes up that's happened before, I can say "hey - here's a ready-to-go argument for the situation I don't need to re-argue first principles". But it still has to persuade the current judge (and any potential appealers) all over again. People do feel a "weight of history" a bit, in the sense of saying that this is a long-running game and it would be a shame to destroy it on a whim of a single judgement, but that applies to entirely new arguments/issues just as much as "old" ones. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider in order to compute the current gamestate. It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement will just overwrite it. On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:47 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 06:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating > specifically? > > What about other ancient things that may affect how other*current* > things > > of the game work too? > > There might be. There's nothing that prevents us from looking back, nor > any game custom that says not to. In fact it's encouraged. Less of a > look-back, but see also Janet recently noticing various proposal issues > from the last two years. We try to curb these things by having stuff > ratify, but it doesn't catch everything (and blindly ratify everything > has its own drawbacks). > > > - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still > exists > > or works as intended? > > Probably not. > > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > > It's a game with a continuous 30 year history, the history is going to > impact that game and having more experience and knowledge about a thing > will give you advantage on the thing. There wasn't some explicit goal of > hurting new players. G. rediscovered some old arcana (which anyone could > do if they wanted to look through old archives, it's how I know anything > from before my time), and wanted to toy around with it. To my knowledge > it's not deeper than that. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On 5/12/23 06:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating specifically? What about other ancient things that may affect how other*current* things of the game work too? There might be. There's nothing that prevents us from looking back, nor any game custom that says not to. In fact it's encouraged. Less of a look-back, but see also Janet recently noticing various proposal issues from the last two years. We try to curb these things by having stuff ratify, but it doesn't catch everything (and blindly ratify everything has its own drawbacks). - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still exists or works as intended? Probably not. - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. It's a game with a continuous 30 year history, the history is going to impact that game and having more experience and knowledge about a thing will give you advantage on the thing. There wasn't some explicit goal of hurting new players. G. rediscovered some old arcana (which anyone could do if they wanted to look through old archives, it's how I know anything from before my time), and wanted to toy around with it. To my knowledge it's not deeper than that. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:00 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > Just on this note, I wanted to say that this was all me, not an "old person conspiracy", so I apologize it felt that way - I didn't reveal the text outside putting the reference in the proposal and referring to it indirectly, and was intending to reveal it right after the voting regardless, so people (old and new) were drawing their own conclusions during the voting. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
What is Invisibilitating? On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:42 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "now you don't see it", AI=1: > > > > > Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: > > Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. > > > [ > Rule 2056 history (confirmed by checking archives): > > Enacted (Power=1) by Proposal 4513 "Invisibilitating" (Steve), 10 July > 2003. > Repealed by Proposal 4759 "Olive Repeals" (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005. > ] > > > >
