Opposed. This massively increases the labour involved, potentially means that every idling player gets bombarded with a message from every admin, and all for the net effect of keeping around a player who clearly isn’t that invested to begin with.

It’s only a “should” not a “must”. If an admin doesn’t have the time, they could ignore this bit and not be in violation.

On the flipside, regarding bombardment of the player, if they don’t want the bombardment, they should be able to request an idle to make it take effect sooner.

I’m just not seeing the downside of recommending that an admin give a player advance warning before idling them.

If this happens, which it shouldn’t, it should not recommend informing Wizards who are already apparently aware that they’re close to idling.

This could be more literally an advance warning: an admin should not time a player out without having personally given them advance notice. Maybe a public message so that other admins can see that it’s been made.

The downsides I can see are that sometimes an admin might not tactically want to remind an opponent to stay in the game, and that if a player is broadly inactive, it may be better for the dynasty if they idle out, rather than apologetically casting a couple of quick votes then ignoring the game for another six days. (We’ve certainly seen the latter behaviour in the past, here and there.)

Per Kevan

Per Kevan

Withdrawn