Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Proposal: Campaign for Real Time

Reached quorum and passed, 8-1. Josh

Adminned at 15 Apr 2009 04:26:42 UTC

To Rule 3.6 (Fair Play), add:-

A Scripter should not edit the “Entry Date” field of a blog post.

Not sure if these edits are logged, off-hand, but let’s just pre-empt any possible scams or (pointless mucking around) that hinges on openly abusing the blog-post datestamps. (Wakukee and Rodlen are currently messing around with the blog functionality that allows posts to be timestamped in the future, meaning that they don’t show up until that point. Useful if you’re a blogger wanting to post stuff in your absence; less useful for a game of Nomic.)



14-04-2009 16:54:44 UTC

for To be exact, Wakky was being sneaky and tried to use it for subliminal advertising, but ended up linking to the wrong thing, while I was just trying to show how he did it.


14-04-2009 16:56:16 UTC

And by the way, both of the future-timestamped posts still exist.

Wakky’s will come in the 24th, while mine will come today.


14-04-2009 16:57:23 UTC

Heh.  I noticed that edit, Kevan.

Kevan: he/him

14-04-2009 17:01:00 UTC

Ah, I must have hit submit seconds after your first comment. (I was just editing the flavour text to clarify things a bit; I can’t remember exactly what it said before.)


14-04-2009 17:03:07 UTC

Hmm…this doesn’t prevent people from posting things with odd timestamps…just from editing timestamps.

Kevan: he/him

14-04-2009 17:05:59 UTC

By “edit the field” I just mean “change the value in the form”, rather than “load it in and save a different one”. When you create a new post, it has a current timestamp; you have to edit that to give a new post an odd timestamp.


14-04-2009 17:07:24 UTC

I’m just going to test something quickly.

I’ll delete my test post afterwards.


14-04-2009 17:13:03 UTC

Thing tested.

Seconds are editable, making edited timestamps indistinguishable from real ones.

And normal posts always have a timestamp that puts them before the exact posting time (I’ve seen a few that were a few hours old when they were first posted).


14-04-2009 18:20:25 UTC

I refer you to the fair play section of the Glossary:
“A Scripter should not deliberately exploit bugs or unexpected behaviours in the software running the game”

Kevan: he/him

14-04-2009 18:42:09 UTC

It’s arguable whether this is an “unexpected behaviour”; it’s obviously an intentional feature of the blog software.

Josh: he/they

14-04-2009 19:26:43 UTC



14-04-2009 20:12:49 UTC

Wak knows perfectly well not to do this, it was one of the things we went over back in the horrible DoV days.

Incidentally, remember the time before when I claimed Wak had been editing timestamps, and Darknight was like, “Do you have any proof?” Well, here’s the proof.


14-04-2009 20:15:42 UTC

I do not expect posts to be dated to times that they are not actually from. If someone were to alter the date, I would see this as exploiting the unexpected behavior of EE.

Thus, to add this to the Ruleset would be redundant.



14-04-2009 20:29:33 UTC

for Anyway, I was inly useing it for subliminal advertising, as can be proven by Josh. I made that same comment to Josh as well, qwaz. Anyway, cool.

P.S. I wasn’t scamming or anything… “The manner in which they chose to do so is of their own choosing, but it must be present in the content of the scene, must be observable when pointed out, and must encourage the purchase of an actual, real-world product.” I just tried to find a good message like Josh’s.


14-04-2009 20:34:07 UTC


Darknight: he/him

14-04-2009 21:45:18 UTC

for Though I must say, Wak you have way too much time on your hands if your diging that deep into the inner workings.


14-04-2009 21:53:25 UTC

Actually, it was discovered completely by accident when I was trying to post a proposal to appear a day later since I already had 3 proposals. I’m not digging at all.

Darknight: he/him

14-04-2009 21:58:02 UTC

LOL, ok so in this case it was one of those *stuck a hidden pipe of oil* lol.


14-04-2009 22:49:52 UTC

Hey, I resent that! I don’t mess with EE “experiments.” That kind of stuff hasn’t happened for a long time.

arthexis: he/him

14-04-2009 23:24:52 UTC



15-04-2009 00:11:55 UTC



15-04-2009 02:43:29 UTC

(This issue also came up during the Gostak Metadynasty.  It was used then in order to insert a proposal in the middle of the proposal queue.)