Proposal: [Core] Checking in
less than quorum not voting against 1-4 failed by card
Adminned at 02 May 2018 02:13:16 UTC
Remove
Admins who are unidling themselves should, in their first vote following each unidling, highlight their changed idle status and any changes to quorum to have come about as a result of it.
Amend
Idle Admins may Unidle themselves at any time
to
Idle Admins may Unidle themselves at any time by making a comment on a blog post on the blog’s front page which highlights their changed idle status and any changes to quorum to have come about as a result of it
Making Admin unidling less stealthy and easier to record, would its timing ever be relevant, by bundling with a step that unidling Admins are bound to take anyways.
Kevan: he/him
Confusing to have this being different from regular player unidling, which does not have to be announced in a comment to be legal. We should also be careful about introducing a rule which would make a mess of the gamestate if people forgot to do it (which a veteran admin would be likely to do if they weren’t active to see this enact).
Replacing that substring also makes for a bit of a meandering sentence, and possibly shifts the focus of the “unless”. (“An Admin may Unidle a Pawn if that Pawn is Idle and has asked to become Unidle in an entry or comment from the past four days, and Idle Admins may Unidle themselves at any time by making a comment on a blog post on the blog’s front page which highlights their changed idle status and any changes to quorum to have come about as a result of it, unless the Pawn who would be Unidled asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous four days, and within the current dynasty.”)