Sad to see you go grok - hope I wasn't overly problematic - your insight so far has led me to some interesting archive spelunking on my part - and I really have enjoyed your play so far.
Interestingly - does grok's agency get dissolved? I think it doesn't - so i'll work on fixing that. (Though TBH I am not in love with the Agency concept at the moment, I feel like it doesn't help anything, I'd rather go all in on organizations, but i'm so locked out that I can't) On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:18 grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote: > Believe me, you were never part of the problem. I didn't mind opining over > philosophy in Agora as long as it's backed with an understanding of the > rules and CFJ precedent--something you always made sure to include in your > more abstract posts. I'm more frustrated with the blase "I say I did so I > did" approaches towards abstract applications of the rules, especially in > cases where the rules plainly state how that case could be handled. > > It's just frustrating that I thought I was doing things right as a new > player--asking lots of questions before I did things and really studying > the rules before registration--when clearly just jumping in and asserting > that I did things is fine too. It makes me feel like my work is for > nothing, and I tend not to stay in spaces where I don't feel appreciated. > > It's just not worth my time and energy to post an argument about every > single psuedo-philosophy argument presented on Agora, and if I don't I run > the risk of losing. Just not a game I'm interested in playing. > > And for what it's worth, I always appreciated your historical approach on > Agora. It was always appreciated. > > > -grok > > On May 29, 2017 12:10 PM, "Kerim Aydin" <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> Sorry if I was over-historicating myself. >> >> On one hand, long digressions on philosophy have always been a part >> of Agora, that's not going away. The recent talk about academics, >> essays and theses, and new players asking lots of questions, kicked it >> up a notch so maybe I started doing that too much , I'll dial it back >> myself. >> >> On the other hand, that's always been part of Agora, but it has to be >> balanced by plenty of working game play (functioning economy and so >> forth) so the long digressions are a minor side show. So people can >> blip over the philosophy they find boring and "just play". >> >> But the "just play" bits seem to have lots of arcane agency-ing that >> I've lost track of myself. And the recent scams set poor cultural >> precedents on scamming, perhaps (same thing happened a couple years >> back with Fool's scam - it was a burst of activity that then killed >> things because everyone got bored while it was sorted). >> >> And of course, with this high volume, it's hard to wade through at all >> no matter what's going on. >> >> FWIW, the contributions I noted from you in your short tenure seemed >> quite worthwhile! Hope you might stay tuned to see if it settles >> down to more regular gameplay in a month or so... >> >> On Mon, 29 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: >> > I was really excited to play legislative-based, classic nomic style >> Agora. That's not what I'm getting. All this psuedo-philosophy of the rules >> > stuff is really frustrating to me, especially since it's all getting >> dismissed or ruled false anyways. >> > I spent a long time reading the rules in depth before I started, and >> really wanted to do it up right. Apparently that isn't a requirement or >> > expectation, so I have no interest in playing. >> > >> > And it's a shame, because I was really, REALLY excited to join a nomic >> with so much history and prestige. But it just doesn't feel like a nomic >> > to me right now. >> > >> > I'll keep an eye on the lists to see if it gets better in a month, but >> I'm not getting my hopes up. >> > >> > >> > I deregister as a player. >> > >> > >> > -grok >> > >> >
