Tuesday, February 04, 2020

Proposal: [Core] tennant number 2

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Feb 2020 20:37:37 UTC

Reword “Individuals” to

Any human may apply to join BlogNomic (if they are not already an Individual) by registering at http://blognomic.com via the Register link in the sidebar, and then making a post making clear their wish to be an ‘’‘Individual’‘’ (plural form ‘’‘Individuals’‘’). An Admin shall make them an Individual by adding them to the roster in the sidebar.

Some Individuals are ‘’‘Admins’‘’, responsible for updating the site and the Ruleset, and are signified as such in the sidebar. Individuals who wish to become Admins may submit a Proposal to make themself an Admin. Existing Admins may be removed from their posts by Proposal, CfJ, or voluntary resignation.

===Idle Individuals===

If an Individual is not listed in the Sidebar in the section “Current Active Players” or only appears there in a comment, they are ‘’‘Idle’‘’. For the purposes of all Gamestate and the Ruleset, excluding Rules “Ruleset and Gamestate”, “Individuals”, “Dynasties”, “Fair Play”, Idle Individuals are not considered Individuals.

If a Proposal or Rule contains a provision that targets either a specifically named Idle Individual or explicitly mentions Idle Individuals, then Idle Individuals are considered to be Unidle
for the purposes of that provision.

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

An Admin may render an Individual Idle if any of the following is true:
*That Individual has asked on the blog to become Idle in the past four days.
*That Individual has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days.
*They are that Individual.

An Admin may Unidle an Individual if #1 is true and either #2 or #3 are true:
#That Individual has not asked to become Idle or Idled themselves within the past four days within the current Dynasty.
#That Individual has asked to become Unidle in an entry or comment in the past four days.
#They are that Individual.

When Idling or Unidling themselves, Admins should announce it in a post or comment. When Idling an Individual who has not requested it, the Admin must announce it in a blog post.

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.

Idle Admins can enact and fail Votable Matters.

Main change is reorganizing the requirements for idling or unidling into two lists.
link with comparison here https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=8825&oldid=8824

Comments

Kevan: he/him

04-02-2020 22:00:37 UTC

What’s the non-main change? It’d be helpful to see this as a side-by-side diff, if you want people to check it over and vote it through. (You can put before and after versions into the same wiki sandbox and make a link that compares the two.)

I still think it’s much a better idea to assemble this all entirely-aesthetic core stuff off-blog and make a single one-line “replace the rules with these new ones” proposal once we’ve checked it over. But if you’re tactically sounding a “DYNASTY IS BASICALLY OVER NOW, NO MORE DYNASTIC PROPOSALS PLEASE” klaxon to quieten the players who aren’t sure what’s appropriate, fair enough.

Madrid:

04-02-2020 22:14:18 UTC

Many others are also doing janitorial proposals, I don’t get why card specifically would be guilty of that last thing.

That said, I prefer the more layman language that we originally have, because it’s easier to digest.

card:

04-02-2020 22:22:03 UTC

“as a side-by-side diff” true, i’ll remember that. link will be in the flavor box.

i wasn’t tactically doing anything like that with this proposal per say—of the past 11 proposals, only 1 of them changed the Dynastic rules. i was going through them rule by rule of the core rules because doing a little bit every day was less labor intensive than taking the whole Core rules and editing them one at a time. of course i could just do that later on an unofficial page and then when it’s all finished, make a proposal to change them to the completed result.

Kevan: he/him

04-02-2020 22:34:38 UTC

Sorry, didn’t intend that to sound as much of a singling out as it did. The general wall-of-core tone of “DYNASTY OVER NOW, TOO LATE TO CHANGE ANYTHING” has just seemed a bit weird the past couple of days, and it’s been bothering me that some players might be reading it as a norm that doesn’t actually exist.

Agree with Cuddlebeam that the existing idling stuff is easier to parse than “if #1 is true and either #2 or #3 are true”. What we’ve got could benefit from some work, though.

I’m on my phone right now so can’t find or compare other edits side-by-side.

Tantusar: he/they

04-02-2020 23:28:21 UTC

Tantusar: he/they

04-02-2020 23:41:02 UTC

against I don’t think there are any actual improvements to the text in here.

More specific commentary: On Line 3, in the original text, “themselves Admins” matches the plural nature of the start of the sentence, “Individuals who wish to become Admins”.

Dynastic rules already overrule Core Rules. It is unnecessary to mention them in Line 9. Further, it is unnecessary to consider all Idle Individuals unidle (there are a lot) for a provision that affects only one of them.

Apart from changing the idle/unidle procedure to be a little more messy (1 AND 2 OR 3 is a real clunker) there are textual changes to the now-bullets and surrounding text that I don’t agree with.

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

05-02-2020 00:10:51 UTC

Provisional against until I can study the proposed changes more carefully in the morning. (I am also on my phone.) I don’t like what I’ve seen so far, though: it appears to complicate rather than simplify.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-02-2020 08:12:30 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

05-02-2020 09:40:31 UTC

against per the “1 and 2 or 3” stuff, but having looked at the diff, it raises some unmentioned issues. What’s the thinking behind changing the mentioned-idle-players clause so that it no longer applies to rules or to unnamed idle players?

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

05-02-2020 13:23:07 UTC

I’ve never really understood that “sign up with a username for the Ruleset Wiki” clause for Admins; does it matter that it’s removed in this proposal?

Reading the existing rule, it does strike me that it’s somewhat densely written, and I understand the rationale for the list format in the proposal. However, the attempted untangling doesn’t seem entirely successful; this fact, in addition to some other issues mentioned above, move me to keep my vote against this proposal.

(There’s also the detail that the proposal includes an irrelevant error: when “The only way out is in a casket” was enacted, the entire second paragraph of the rule was deleted, including the clause about changing an Individual’s name by proposal. This sentence wasn’t supposed to be deleted, and it’s also missing here.)

That said, the rule can still do with some improvements, and I’d like to look into this as soon as is practicable.

Kevan: he/him

05-02-2020 14:56:08 UTC

(And oh, I realise now I was reading that diff backwards on naming idle players, Card was adding it rather than removing.)

card:

05-02-2020 15:11:03 UTC

Fair points against