Round 9/History: Difference between revisions

Line 788:

== Conclusion ==

There are clearly several things we can take away from this story, ranging from surface-level to ~~obscure. Let's start by discussing what Round 9 did well~~.

There are clearly several things we can take away from this story, ranging from surface-level to structural.

=== Pacing ===

In the author's opinion, the pacing of a Nomic game can be tricky to get right. People have a lot going on in their lives and many of us can't check in with the frequency that some games require. BlogNomic is a fast-paced game with lots of moving parts. You have to check in nearly every day during the most active spells. It can take tens of minutes each day you check in to get your bearings, strategize, and do everything that you want to do.

Let's start by discussing what Round 9 did well. In the author's opinion, the pacing of a Nomic game can be tricky to get right. People have a lot going on in their lives and many of us can't check in with the frequency that some games require. BlogNomic is a fast-paced game with lots of moving parts. You have to check in nearly every day during the most active spells. It can take tens of minutes each day you check in to get your bearings, strategize, and do everything that you want to do.

Agora is at the other end of the spectrum. Rarely do you have to worry about an action that is to be taken more frequently than weekly. This comes at the cost of speed. It takes a long time to see the fruits of your efforts in Agora, and that is a deterrent for many.

Line 824:

Furthermore, if just one other person had had the idea to write a proposal in the same vein as Eggotinne (see {{Heading|The Untold Saga of Eggotinne (11 Mar 2021 - 20 Mar 2021)}}), or if someone had noticed Eggotinne's deletion, Wotton would have had a much harder time paying people off to turn the other way.

The paths to fixing this overarching issue are clear in hindsight. For my part, I just lost interest in the round and I only showed up once in a while to do my semiweekly obligations. If I paid as much attention in the moment as I have paid to Round 9 while writing this essay, I probably would have done something about it. ~~All~~ it ~~required~~ was a little ~~bit~~ of ~~attention~~.

The paths to fixing this overarching issue are clear in hindsight. For my part, I just lost interest in the round and I only showed up once in a while to do my semiweekly obligations. If I paid as much attention in the moment as I have paid to Round 9 while writing this essay, I probably would have done something about it. I just had to pay a little more attention.

=== Textualism from Intentionalism ===

The [[Round 9/Initial Ruleset|Initial Ruleset]] for Round 9 extremely barebones. It is possible to follow to the letter, but it does not necessarily prescribe this mentality on the proposals to come. At the same time, it does not have ''enough'' framework to make writing very textualist rules easy. In particular, a clearer way to define items would have been very helpful for the round. And even though I contend that the complete textualism we saw in this round was the result of several rounds of progression toward it, at the beginning of this round, not everyone was clearly on-board. Proposal 🦆 was poorly worded in many different ways. If I had known how the game would progress, I probably would have written Proposal 🦆 a little more explicitly. As a thought experiment, here is Proposal 🦆 redrafted in the famously strict Agoran style:

{{Proposal Box

|name=🦆

|text=

Enact a new Power-1 rule titled "Ducks" which reads:

:Ducks are assets that can be owned by players. Players CAN assign a duck they own a name by announcement. Ducks with no name are fungible. Players CANNOT interact with a duck which has no name except to assign it a name.

}}

This mismatch of rule-writing styles caught up with us and in fact contributed to the round's downfall: the Day of Infinite Ducks exploit had existed since Proposal 🦆 itself because at the beginning of the round we struggled to define things as well as our eventual textualist readings would require us to.

== References ==

@@ Line 788: / Line 788: @@
 == Conclusion ==
-There are clearly several things we can take away from this story, ranging from surface-level to obscure. Let's start by discussing what Round 9 did well.
+There are clearly several things we can take away from this story, ranging from surface-level to structural.
 === Pacing ===
-In the author's opinion, the pacing of a Nomic game can be tricky to get right. People have a lot going on in their lives and many of us can't check in with the frequency that some games require. BlogNomic is a fast-paced game with lots of moving parts. You have to check in nearly every day during the most active spells. It can take tens of minutes each day you check in to get your bearings, strategize, and do everything that you want to do.
+Let's start by discussing what Round 9 did well. In the author's opinion, the pacing of a Nomic game can be tricky to get right. People have a lot going on in their lives and many of us can't check in with the frequency that some games require. BlogNomic is a fast-paced game with lots of moving parts. You have to check in nearly every day during the most active spells. It can take tens of minutes each day you check in to get your bearings, strategize, and do everything that you want to do.
 Agora is at the other end of the spectrum. Rarely do you have to worry about an action that is to be taken more frequently than weekly. This comes at the cost of speed. It takes a long time to see the fruits of your efforts in Agora, and that is a deterrent for many.
@@ Line 824: / Line 824: @@
 Furthermore, if just one other person had had the idea to write a proposal in the same vein as Eggotinne (see {{Heading|The Untold Saga of Eggotinne (11 Mar 2021 - 20 Mar 2021)}}), or if someone had noticed Eggotinne's deletion, Wotton would have had a much harder time paying people off to turn the other way.
-The paths to fixing this overarching issue are clear in hindsight. For my part, I just lost interest in the round and I only showed up once in a while to do my semiweekly obligations. If I paid as much attention in the moment as I have paid to Round 9 while writing this essay, I probably would have done something about it. All it required was a little bit of attention.
+The paths to fixing this overarching issue are clear in hindsight. For my part, I just lost interest in the round and I only showed up once in a while to do my semiweekly obligations. If I paid as much attention in the moment as I have paid to Round 9 while writing this essay, I probably would have done something about it. I just had to pay a little more attention.
+=== Textualism from Intentionalism ===
+The [[Round 9/Initial Ruleset|Initial Ruleset]] for Round 9 extremely barebones. It is possible to follow to the letter, but it does not necessarily prescribe this mentality on the proposals to come. At the same time, it does not have ''enough'' framework to make writing very textualist rules easy. In particular, a clearer way to define items would have been very helpful for the round. And even though I contend that the complete textualism we saw in this round was the result of several rounds of progression toward it, at the beginning of this round, not everyone was clearly on-board. Proposal 🦆 was poorly worded in many different ways. If I had known how the game would progress, I probably would have written Proposal 🦆 a little more explicitly. As a thought experiment, here is Proposal 🦆 redrafted in the famously strict Agoran style:
+{{Proposal Box
+ |name=🦆
+ |text=
+Enact a new Power-1 rule titled "Ducks" which reads:
+:Ducks are assets that can be owned by players. Players CAN assign a duck they own a name by announcement. Ducks with no name are fungible. Players CANNOT interact with a duck which has no name except to assign it a name.
+}}
+This mismatch of rule-writing styles caught up with us and in fact contributed to the round's downfall: the Day of Infinite Ducks exploit had existed since Proposal 🦆 itself because at the beginning of the round we struggled to define things as well as our eventual textualist readings would require us to.
 == References ==
 <references />