4st nomic via agora-discussion [2023-06-30 22:50]: > There is no standard here, or if there is, it should be set lower once > again: this is a game, theses should be encouraged, and it's wild across > the board. I'm sure there's a thesis waiting on the standards of theses. > > Finally, as a game, this IS performative. This isn't some official > institution granting actual degrees. Agora is not accredited.
I disagree with this reasoning, but will not argue further than this on the risk of being rude: it's not because it's a game that it should not be taken seriously, or even be easy. > To all players: > > This is why I'm pushing back on the standards: I don't see anything that > mentions what qualifies something for Associate, but I would like help > identifying what I could do to make it easier. “[A degree] SHOULD only be awarded for the publication of an original thesis of scholarly worth (including responses to peer-review)” (R1367, ¶3) “Degrees SHOULD be awarded according to the extent to which the thesis contributes to Nomic culture or thought: Associate degrees for an appreciable contribution” (R1367, ¶4) >From the Cambridge dictionary: “appreciable (adjective): (esp. of amounts or changes) large enough to be noticed or to have an effect” (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/appreciable) So, an A. of Nomic must have any detectable effect whatsoever in Nomic culture and thought. > I am pushing back because standards have significantly increased I don't think that's bad. And if you do, you should consider advocating for that idea, and not trying to force it upon the community using the power of an office. Regarding the examples you cited: I cannot possibly argue for or against long-past thesis in terms of their influence on the general culture of the game. At least not without extensive historical research. But I can say this: unlike jurisprudence, peer-review is not (and should not be) bound by precedent. But against myself, let's look at them anyway, I can say that G.'s and Alexis' thesis must've had some effect. In the abstract, reading them, they had an effect on me. Now I think of nomic slightly differently because of G.'s thesis, and I know something about how conditional votes have worked in the past because of Alexis'. That must have been the case then, and they are at least perceptibly influential. So A.N. is fine. As for the A.N.A.'s, I'll just venture into saying that even mild artistic merit should get you one. Note that the work you linked is not the one by the title you cited. The one you linked is (without judgment on quality) an entry in the long list of fictional texts that make us contemplate our fragility by pointing to our possible ends. It's also good if we want to avoid that. And I don't like to hammer on this same nail again, but you are insisting, and you are the Herald, and you are making decisions which benefit yourself, so I must. The current thesis in question doesn't rise even to the sorrow level of the pittiful thesis you cited [1]. That's for a simple reason. In ten years, if someone pointed to it, a reader would get nothing from it. Why? Not because the ideas are bad, but because the ideas are not entirely written out. The only thing that can be infered from the text is that *some* vaguely interesting idea exists in the author's head. So citations are not mere academic hard-headedness. They are necessary so that the ideas presented in *this thesis* can be appreciated. The work does not rise to the level of a A.N. simply because there is no dicernible content. It's *almost* there. But not quite. So my recommendation to REVISE AND RESUBMIT seems more than adequate. [1]: Irony. -- juan
