Monday, October 25, 2021

Proposal: Autonomy Mk. II

Reached quorum 8 votes to 4. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 27 Oct 2021 10:53:45 UTC

Add the following to the end of the first bullet point in the rule Fair Play:

This extends to exerting full control over the actions of another Realtor, defined here as the controlled Realtor’s game behavior being functionally indistinguishable from if the controlling Realtor was logged into their account and playing through it, over a period of more than a day.

let’s not give up so easily!! here’s a clarification for “full control” as suggested by Kevan in the comments of Autonomy (the first).
and let’s try not to split hairs more than is necessary, y’all– i would really expect that fair play, more than anywhere else in the ruleset, is where social interpretation & common sense r more important than the exact rulestext. what matters here isn’t whether the fair play rules are immune to logical twists and bad-faith interpretations; its just making sure that it clearly communicates to the playerbase what is to be expected. i think this does that!

Comments

Brendan: he/him

26-10-2021 00:57:51 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

26-10-2021 04:27:33 UTC

I’m not for this in principle but I think I’ll have to be in practice :/

TyGuy6:

26-10-2021 05:36:20 UTC

against I’m sticking to my principles. The whole category should remain within fair play rules, even to the extreme end of the possibility space. Give me a reason to draw the line, other than that one person has used this form of collaboration to good effect, before I might compromise.

Chiiika: she/her

26-10-2021 05:46:41 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

26-10-2021 06:18:19 UTC

I worry the “more than a day” bit adds a weird hard line where a softer line might be better at defining what’s cool and what isn’t

Madrid:

26-10-2021 06:51:29 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

26-10-2021 08:09:38 UTC

for

lemon: she/her

26-10-2021 08:19:05 UTC

@Clucky not a bad point, this just seemed like the most convenient way to draw that line; if it was softer would we still want to go with time as the factor, or instead something like the significance of the actions that were controlled, or the nature of the deal (making the collaboration vs script-following dichotomy weve discussed an explicit guideline)?

Josh: Observer he/they

26-10-2021 08:27:42 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

26-10-2021 13:11:15 UTC

for

Vovix: he/him

26-10-2021 17:50:57 UTC

I don’t know if a Fair Play rule really needs this much detailed definition, but some rule is better than no rule.
for

Chiiika: she/her

26-10-2021 19:34:42 UTC

for

Silverwing: she/her

26-10-2021 21:00:50 UTC

against (This is not because TyGuy6 did the same thing)

Chiiika: she/her

27-10-2021 00:44:14 UTC

The point is that we must draw the line somewhere, and if this is too prohibitive this might be better set in Community Guidelines @lemon @Josh

Chiiika: she/her

27-10-2021 00:44:39 UTC

But I’m not against putting it directly under FP

pokes:

27-10-2021 00:52:20 UTC

against

pokes:

27-10-2021 00:53:18 UTC

I just think adding this much to FP is an overreaction

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

27-10-2021 01:17:55 UTC

for