On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 16:25 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > I'm fairly certain my deregistration statement clearly outlines that the > fruitless philosophical CFJ attempts in spite of obvious rules that answers > them are my biggest gripe. I don't mind some philosophical discussion of > the rules, but when the ruleset or prior CFJs obviously answer the question > I get frustrated. It's not worth my time to run in circles over those > discussions when they have answers already.
Given that both I and the judges are struggling to keep up with the CFJ load recently, perhaps we should consider making calling a CFJ require spending Shinies, just like pending a proposal does. I'm not sure if we've experimented with limited CFJs before now. (I think there are a ton of rules trying to prevent us doing just that, but we can always change the rules if need be.) That said, a large flux of repetitive CFJs that are already answered by precedent tends to happen every time there's a surge in registrations, as new players tend to be unfamiliar with arguments that the rest of us have done to death already. (The new players occasionally find a direction to look in that the existing players hadn't seen; quite a few Wins by Paradox were created like that. So despite typically being repetitive, the CFJs in question also sometimes create useful gameplay.) I think the lack of a useful economy (Shinies don't count, as there's nothing to trade them for) is something that causes Agora to turn overly philosophical, as there's often not much else to do. Creating an economy is also hard, though, because typically most players won't participate in it, and economies need participation to really function correctly. It's interesting to note that at times of lower activity, when there isn't a functioning economy, players tend to make wild and drastic changes to the rules in the hope that there'll be more to discuss. This nearly always backfires and leaves the mailing lists dead for months at a time. -- ais523
