I agree we need something to do, but maybe we need a base proposal that we all agree on before we have a competition towards making that thing better.
It seems valid to 'clean up the mess' by giving us something to do (So I don't feel like my new proposal competition suggestion blocks an academic draw, it simply also focuses our energies on fixing all the little or big broken parts of the rules that need to be cleaned up) On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > One comment: there's a lot of energy in Agencies right now. Agencies are > useful to let people do things on behalf of other people. > > But that's all pretty meaningless if there's nothing for people to actually > *do*. > > Get *something* in there (other than proposals) that's worth spending money > on. Maybe territory, maybe academia, maybe winning points - but I think > just "fixing" isn't quite on, because there's not much underlying gameplay > to actually *fix*. By "underlying gameplay" I mean something grindy (to > a certain degree), something where players make a few, basic moves > regularly > to build up to an interesting game position. > > Also, now that we've given each other feedback on CFJs, it might be nice > to see if this CFJ storm is mostly over and was just passing through, > before > jumping to create more complicated systems that assume 20 CFJs/week is the > new normal... > > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > > I Object - I think a proposal competition around making things less > messy might be more important at > > the moment vs adding a bunch of new academic stuff (I like the general > idea, but it might not be the > > perfect time) > > > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:19 AM CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > > I SUPPORT this. > > > > ...If it's alright that there has been a typo there and the following > got split: > > > > "Objective of improving and encouraging scholarship of Agora and/or > theming Agora around scholarship and academia." > > > > > > > >
