Explicit Author

surewhynot (aka-I don’t know what the negatives of anon-CFJs are, but I assume that there must have been some for it to have been removed in the first place)

Also, please do not vote defer on this. thank you.

People were using the anon feature to post spam - much more spam than legit CfJs.

Back in the day, several spam CFJ’s were made. But I feel we have moved beyond that.

Wakukee: Yes. We have moved beyond that by removing the anonymous CfJs.

I believe that most players will not be posting spam. Besides it is POSSIBLE to track the origional author if they are spamming.

I made a small typo here, saying character instead of citizen, but it can be fixed without a proposal when it is passed via the typo rule.

I’m afraid I don’t share your conviction that all existing and future BlogNomic players have understood and moved on from the spam CfJ issue that maybe a dozen players sat through in 2008. And even if everyone’s immaculately polite about it, anonymity still gives people that little extra push to go ahead and make that dubious or speculative-scam CfJ, even if they aren’t sure it makes any sense, because nobody will know it was them.

You say we can track spammers, so we can also track the anonymous CfJ author, which means if someone really wants to put an idea forward anonymously, an anonymous CfJ isn’t going to be enough. (We’ve already got a stronger identity-stripping CfJ system - just ask an accomplice, a stooge or the Emperor to post a CfJ on your behalf, through private channels.)

We can always pull it if it doesn’t oan out, I’ve just always liked the idea of it.

*pan

There’s also the problem that there’s no way to have anonymous CfJs without also allowing anonymous posts, so we get random gibberish and the cowardly voice of god when a player thinks he can post anything anonymously.

Anonymous CfJs have some interesting uses, but they bring too much other junk along with them. I think we’d get more benefit by just stating “anonymous CfJs can be submitted via the Emperor”.

I’m torn on this. I think the arguments in favor of it are made by people insufficiently cynical about such a process (because there should be a channel for airing grievances free of politics), and the arguments against it might be a little too cynical (because everything really is political, like it or not). In the end, I don’t see a need to vote for or against cynicism because that vote obscures the nuances beyond my preference, so I abstain.

We’ve had some really nasty things said in anonymous CfJs, and I’m not looking forward to more of the same.

How about logging in anonymously (using a proxy, if you are really paranoid) in our IRC channel, linking to a CfJ text on some paste service. If the CfJ is not Spam, I am sure someone, especially Admins, will take the text and create a CfJ. In the comment field they could explain why they do so.

So, anon-cfjs are possible. ;)

But generally, do we need this? In my opinion a Nomic Player should be brave enough to state eir opinion.

CoV

  Allowing the citizens to post without the computer’s knowledge of the author is high TREASON due to the fact that the computer will be unable to deliver punishment or reward to the author that rightfully deserves it, thus reducing it’s power.

What’s a character?

How is this treasonous? This does not create or alter any dynastic rules. I’ve reverted this slanderous accusation.

I would dare say that accusations of treason to an untreasonous proposal are signs of subversive communism.

The computer must know everything important about the Alpha Complex, and that includes the authors of posts. To keep secrets from the computer would be treasonous and counter-productive. Unreverting.

How is this in any way treasonous?
A: It was posted before that rule was created.
B: It affects a core rule, and thus SHOULD be considered to operate outside the dynastic rules.
C: CFJs are specifically designed to resolve problems or oversights by players or in the rules. Thus, they operate outside of the dynastic rules, in a way. It is MEANT to operate beyond the computer. DOV’s as well.

Nevermind, I read the rule more closely. As this proposal affects a core rule, the proposal is not treasonous. Reverting.

The only proposals which are treasonous (by the rules, many things are treason, but we will restrict ourselves to things which actually have a game effect) are those which attempt effect a rule whic has a clearance level above yours. Core Rules have no clearance levels, and therefore, modifying them is NOT treasonous.

I like the idea of Anon-CFJs, but am deferring to the wisdom of those that were here for the original removal.

Put: don’t forget to change your vote if you are for this prop. (I don’t like influencing core rules changes as High-Programmer)

I was also around for the change, but I can live without them. Still,  .

  Oh ok, sorry :P Didn’t read the rule closely enough