Saturday, July 31, 2021

Call for Judgment: Clucky, stop illegally marking CFJs as illegal too

Cannot be enacted with 1 vote FOR to 5 AGAINST. Josh

Adminned at 01 Aug 2021 09:23:51 UTC

Revert Clucky’s marking of “Clucky, stop illegally idling me” as illegal, and enact it.

Remove Clucky’s status as an Admin.

What am I supposed to do in a situation where a player edit-wars to illegally mark me as idle, and then illegally marks the CFJ that’s meant to end the edit war as idle, too? This is completely unreasonable conduct from an admin (especially as Josh and Kevan had both previously agreed that the unidling worked, in the thread about it). Even if Clucky did think the CFJ was illegal, the correct reaction was to vote against, or at least leave it to another admin to place the illegal mark, so that we could have a vote about the issue (rather than use admin powers to try to enforce Clucky’s point of view).

As far as I can tell, there’s no recourse available against this sort of abuse of admin powers – we can’t have a CFJ to check whether something was legal or not if it keeps getting illegally marked as illegal. Therefore, the only fix to this issue is to remove the admin powers of admins who are abusing the admin functions to prevent scrutiny of their actions.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 05:16:32 UTC

against fuck off

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 05:23:37 UTC

first off, you were illegally un-idled due to how the wording of how idle rules work

secondly, due to the fact that you never learned the task of “how to properly communicate with others like a normal human being” you never once tried to do something reasonable like point out in slack where you asked to be unidle. instead, you just ignored the rules that clearly state that the sidebar is what tracks who is idle and who isn’t and tried to prevent like you were a vampie lord even though the rules stated you weren’t.

so yeah. fuck off. you single handled made this whole dynasty a shitty experience with your toxic personality. so please. fuck all the way off.

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 05:46:52 UTC

p.s. maybe if you hadn’t tried to use a core rules scam where you asked to be idled in a month old post so no one could easily find where you asked to be idled you wouldn’t have gotten into this mess in the first place

just a suggestion for the next time you try and pull a stunt like this.

ais523:

31-07-2021 06:14:27 UTC

I pointed out where I asked to be idled on the comments to the same post where I asked to be unidled. Isn’t that the most obvious place to check?

The sidebar tracks who is idle and unidle. If it’s illegally edited, that doesn’t actually idle or unidle someone – that just means that the tracking list is inaccurate. (If you could idle people by illegally editing the sidebar, that would lead to a trivial dictatorship scam.) In particular, you can’t illegally edit the sidebar and then use that as a basis for claiming that someone’s posts were made illegally – the legality is based on whether the player is actually idle, not based on whether the sidebar shows them as idle.

Also, there wasn’t a mess here until you decided to create one.

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 06:32:37 UTC

all you did was go “the unidling was legal, it was 4 days after the *request* (which is what the rules care about), even though it was less than 4 days after the idling itself”. No actual reference to any posts anywhere

if someone is idled illegally, they are still idle until that edit is redone. you were idle when you tried to post your CfJ. both because you were not listed in the sidebar, and because Kevan’s move to unidle you was improperly performed due to how the unidling rules worked.

so yeah. stop projecting and fuck off.

Josh: he/they

31-07-2021 07:37:59 UTC

against

ais523:

31-07-2021 07:41:41 UTC

For what it’s worth, Clucky and I had a long Slack conversation about this incident which may be worth reading; it started off badly but became much more reasonable over time.

Josh: he/they

31-07-2021 07:58:01 UTC

Yeah I’m not reading that

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 08:03:14 UTC

Probably a good call

Anyways the fact remains that all the actions I took were simply me following my understanding as my role as an admin, and even if you disagree with those actions enough that you think I should’ve behaved differently jumping straight to “de-admin clucky” is incredibly aggressive and absurd

Josh: he/they

31-07-2021 08:41:06 UTC

At some point we will want to have a post-mortem about how the atmosphere of this dynasty became so toxic, particularly as relates to the interactions between ais and Clucky and ais and myself, and the impact it had on the majority of players who were non-participants in that dynamic; probably best to do it well away from the fact, however.

As far as I’m concerned, Clucky remains an admin in good standing, and “de-admin Clucky” is a move with approximately as much legitimacy as “ban ais” - which is to say, none.

Kevan: City he/him

31-07-2021 13:19:55 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

31-07-2021 13:24:15 UTC

Slack is a significant part of the problem. It’s not a good medium for amicable conversation about a long game with emotional stakes.  against

Lulu: she/her

31-07-2021 19:27:03 UTC

against