Thursday, June 21, 2012

Proposal: Cleanup, take 2

Vetoed. Josh

Adminned at 24 Jun 2012 00:44:39 UTC

Replace the contents of the subrule “Idle Time Buddhas” with

Some Workers are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules “Ruleset and Gamestate”, “Workers”, “Machines”, “Fair Play” and any of those Rules’ subrules, Idle Time Buddhas are not counted as Time Buddhas.

If a Proposal contains a provision that targets a specifically named Idle Worker, then that Idle Worker is considered to be Unidle solely for the purposes of enacting that specific provision

When an Worker is unidled, if they went Idle in the same dynasty, their personal gamestate retains the last legally endowed values it had, if they are still valid. Otherwise (including if a value is invalid, does not exist, or the Worker Idled in a different dynasty), the Worker is given the default value for new Workers, if such a value exists.

Idle players may request to be made Unidle and Unidle players may request to be made Idle at any time by making a post or comment to the blog. If a Time Buddah is Unidle, has requested to become Idle in an entry or comment from the past four days, and has not been made Idle since making it the request, then any Admin may render that Worker Idle. An Admin may also render a Worker Idle if that Time Buddha has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. Admins may render themselves Idle at any time. If a Time Buddah is Idle, has requested to become Unidle in the past four days, has not been made Unidle since making it, and did not request to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous four days and within the current dynasty then any Admin (including the one making the request) may render that Time Buddah Unidle.

Whenever an Admin renders a Time Buddah Idle or Unidle, they must make a post to the blog announcing this change. If they change the Idle status of multiple Workers at once, they may announce all of these changes in the same blog post. This post may also contain the request by the Admin to become Unidle or Idle.

in the rule “Victory and Ascension” replace

When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST Votes that exceed Quorum, the Worker who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.

with

When a DoV is failed, if it has a number of AGAINST Votes that equals or exceed Quorum, the Worker who posted it cannot make another DoV until after 120 hours (5 days) have passed since the time their DoV was failed.

 

 

If you guys want to keep the DoV ban, at least prevent the situation where an admin can fail their DoV quicker to prevent reaching the “quorum + 1” mark, as that is rather unfair to non-admins.

Really feel that idling should be announced when it happens. Makes it easier to keep track of everything that way. “Oh, I asked to be unidling in a comment to this three year old post” is just asking for loopholes.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

21-06-2012 22:17:45 UTC

“Whenever an Admin renders a Time Buddah Idle or Unidle, they must make a post to the blog announcing this change.” Too much spam, the admin should be able to just comment on the idling/unidling post to announce that it’s done.  against

Henri:

21-06-2012 22:20:19 UTC

imperial

Clucky: he/him

21-06-2012 22:21:34 UTC

Who is active in the game and when is incredibly important. This is a compromise between forcing all the players to make those “Idling posts” and giving us something that we can actually keep track of. Like I said, otherwise someone could just request to idle in a three month old post, and no one would ever see it.

Kevan: he/him

21-06-2012 22:58:56 UTC

Josh’s suggestion seems a good idea for the hypothetical cases where timing becomes important - all I can really think of are “Player X is clearly active in the sidebar, but was she unidled before or after Proposal Y reached quorum?” situations (are there others?). It only has to be written down somewhere where we can check it.

Clucky: he/him

21-06-2012 23:13:27 UTC

“somewhere where we can check it. ” is the important part though. Without requiring it to be a blogpost, its too hard for admins to find when the unidling took place.

Kevan: he/him

21-06-2012 23:19:01 UTC

But if it’s only ever an issue in rare hypothetical edge cases (which, so far as I remember, have yet to arise in the game), I think we can live with ten minutes of detective work to check comments on recent posts.

If there’s some weird scam of “I asked to be unidled on a post from three years ago!” then the burden of proof is simply on the unidler to provide the link.

Clucky: he/him

22-06-2012 00:39:57 UTC

Its ten minutes of dective work for the admin passing the proposal vs one minute of extra work for the admin doing the idling and a few seconds for people to scroll over the post.

Kevan: he/him

22-06-2012 00:50:16 UTC

Ongoing spam just to save us ten minutes should an obscure edge case arise in the future seems a terrible trade-off, however swift our scroll wheels.

against

scshunt:

22-06-2012 02:00:54 UTC

against due to the post requirement.

scshunt:

22-06-2012 02:23:30 UTC

veto because the enactment of the retheme leaves this proposal going to completely break the rules, since it doesn’t affect “Time Buddah” and I can’t correct that typo before applying the retheme.