Peter: Ever since Levitating Potato realized I wasn't really a revolutionary we've been having AIM discussions of things relating to the Revolution, often only tangentially. Most of the directly-relevant things either have been or will be discussed to death on the comments for other tasks, so we're not talking about that here.

The big question, in our opinion, is "Under what circumstances should groups be retired?" We both feel that it would be most enjoyable to see the landscape of the game be an ever-changing one where new groups replace old from time to time, just as old tasks are phased out and new ones phased in. And personally, I'm really, really looking forward to some of the proposed groups for Insatiability - nothing would make me happier than a chance to join LEWL in the new era.

But I think the time to replace a group is when it's had a good run and shown off what it can be. Groups shouldn't die before they've really lived.

Which is why in the coming era I think we should lose EquivalenZ. It's been fun being in it for the past... um, about a month... since I signed up. But frankly I've seen so much beautiful EquivalenZ tasking that next year I'd rather see that creativity put toward another concept entirely. Frankly, I'm arrogant enough to say I think my Meat is Money (even though it's a general task, I claim it for EZ because it's inherently a Kingdom of Loathing reference) and the MN0 Nintend0 I organized are an excellent showcase of what the group is all about, and I'm looking forward to Charlie Fish's promised attempts at every EquivalenZ task. For that matter I think the time Dax arranged to meet face to face while preserving the distance the internet creates was a brilliant example of the sort of thinking EZ is meant to promote, even though it wasn't an EZ completion.

And those are just a handful that come to mind easily. Perfectly EquivalenZy tasking is all over, and it's a glorious thing. We - all of us, not just the ones in EquivalenZ - have shown off what this group can be.

Mission accomplished.

Really, I don't think that's something any other group can say right now. But it means it's time for us to get a new mission.

LP: Peter makes an interesting case for retiring Equivalenz. I'd love to see more EQ tasking -- but at the same time, I think it would be better to retire the group after it has shown us what it's really capable of, but before it's so far past its prime that it needs it.

The problem, though, is what to do with groups that have a lot of potential, but aren't really showcasing it. You can retire them and replace them with something better. Or you can let them stay, possibly slightly modified, in hopes that they will do better in the future. In general, it is my belief that simple admonitions to "do better," no matter how well intentioned both the admonishers and the admonished may be, are highly unlikely to succeed. Certainly their historical track record is bad. SF0 may be a small enough, tightly knit enough group that it would work -- but I doubt it would work for very long, even so.

(An aside, even though we're not supposed to be talking about the Revolution here: If those of us on the Revolutionary side decided that a compromise was viable -- which it isn't -- then it seems entirely possible that the Revolution would turn into a self-defeating prophecy. By making a big enough deal about it in the right way, it could potentially reform the UofA. However, I believe that would be a dangerous precedent to set, as it seems implausible that the Revolution could be repeated no matter how badly it was needed the second time around.)

I think that it is appropriate to retire groups that aren't living up to their potential, even if that potential is great. However, I think they should be retired with an understanding that it isn't permanent. They might not be present in the following era, but their spiritual descendent would return in the era after that. A break from the group, a slight change in emphasis, and a new name might be exactly what was required put the spark back in and show off exactly what the trajectory can do.

Peter: Frankly I'm in agreement with almost everything the Potato says there. Saying "This group needs to do better" isn't enough - even when a group definitely does.

Something like the Revolution happening, or something completely different that spurs a discussion of the meanings of the Trajectories both in practice and as they ideally should be, may be essential to bring that about. (Such a discussion is beginning to happen about the University, thanks to the revolutionary effort. I think Dax deserves all of our thanks for bringing that about, as it was desperately needed. But I'd like to see it happen with the other groups too.)

But those discussions need to bear fruit. I think the group trajectories should be rewritten as not a set of ideas the group stands for, but a statement about the sort of things the group ought to be given tasks for. Honestly EquivalenZ fits this awfully well, and I suspect that has something to do with why it has in my opinion shown itself off the best.

LP: I actually rather like the current language of the group descriptions, to the extent that it emphasizes goals and ideology over specific task types. I think, however, that it should speak in a clearer, simpler language. I think the Biome and Equivalenz descriptions are best in that regard. I also think it is important that it be clear from the description, whether implicitly or explicitly, both what the group is and what it isn't. A careful reading of the current UofA description would suggest that it isn't merely "everything artsy" -- but that is how it gets interpreted.

I'll reiterate what I think is the most important point here: restriction, in moderation, breeds creativity. If taken to heart, the groups structure can provide a wonderful way to offer enough restriction to foster creativity without being so draconian as to stifle it.

Thus, Let it be resolved:
All the group descriptions will be rewritten, more in the style of the current Equivalenz and Biome descriptions, so as to provide clarity about the boundaries of the groups. The Equivalenz group will be retired, not out of necessity, but out of honor for how it has shown off the creative potential of the themes it encompasses. In light of the fact that there is much more yet to be explored in those themes, they will one day return, but in new forms and combinations under new names.