Sunday, October 11, 2009

Call for Judgment: Ban Darth Cliche.

Hits a Quorum of AGAINST votes -Bucky

Adminned at 12 Oct 2009 12:45:35 UTC

Ban Darth Cliche.

Really, can we please PLAY? This is getting beyond inane, we are starting to have an active dynasty which we have not had during 4 or 5 months. And then, when things start to look up, when we finally have players actually playing the game, DC, yuri, et al. come around and try to turn us back to the inane drivel that we have just crawled out of. And it has been like this since DC started playing.

It’s not the first time I’ve said this. You ignored me the first time, the second time, the third time, etc, etc. It keeps happening. It WILL keep happening. Don’t fool yourselves believing it will not. We have many wonderful players, but no one is required. DC is not one of the wonderful ones, he is a hindrance.

Comments

arthexis:

10-11-2009 06:48:38 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

10-11-2009 06:55:51 UTC

against What did I do, anyway?

Excalabur:

10-11-2009 07:10:21 UTC

imperial For now.  (I know this doesn’t count)

Kevan:

10-11-2009 09:20:14 UTC

Can you be a bit more specific than “turn us back to the inane drivel”? I’m only seeing one poorly-considered DoV.

Kevan:

10-11-2009 09:33:29 UTC

Okay, and Darth deliberately reproposed a broken proposal, in order to use it as a “pick a winner” vote. But making a “pick a winner” proposal doesn’t seem particularly bannable.

Josh:

10-11-2009 10:27:36 UTC

Further, and I know that this has come up before, but do we have a ruleset basis upon which to “ban” people?

Kevan:

10-11-2009 11:12:09 UTC

The Fair Play rule says that “a proposal or CfJ may be made to remove the perpetrator from the game, and bar them from rejoining”, but doesn’t use the word “ban”.

I don’t know if we’ve ever actually banned anyone, but I imagine the mechanic in practice would be proposing a new glossary rule of “Darth Cliche has been banned from BlogNomic and may not be unidled, nor return to the game under another name.”

ais523:

10-11-2009 11:41:16 UTC

against Not ban-worthy IMO; playing around difficult players is part of the fun of nomic. (Interestingly, in most nomics, most players seem to agree who the difficult players are; in BlogNomic, it’s a lot less obvious.)

Shem:

10-11-2009 12:21:15 UTC

against Quite uncalled-for.

Oze:

10-11-2009 13:56:32 UTC

against

Klisz:

10-11-2009 14:52:12 UTC

against  for obvious reasons, and per Kevan.

arthexis:

10-11-2009 15:52:17 UTC

I’m not talking about this dynasty. There are just too many examples of misconduct to list them.

Just remember this for next time…

Klisz:

10-11-2009 17:01:08 UTC

arth: This attempt makes less sense than http://blognomic.com/archive/cliche_not_allowed_to_enact_proposals/ ...

Klisz:

10-11-2009 17:04:32 UTC

Also, according to the GNDT config, we’ve banned pie-is-square.

Bucky:

10-11-2009 17:46:11 UTC

against

Darknight:

10-11-2009 21:34:17 UTC

against

Excalabur:

10-11-2009 23:27:32 UTC

against Though I’m surprised at how weak DC’s self-defence was.

Klisz:

10-12-2009 00:33:47 UTC

I woke up early today. My cat thinks human flesh makes good food.

Anyway, arth tries to ban everyone… I’m starting to think I should find a reason to ban him.

spikebrennan:

10-12-2009 15:13:24 UTC

against

Wooble:

10-12-2009 16:36:43 UTC

against