Ridiculously complicated.

Would it not be easier to just have a “Group” GNDT column with the only legal values being “?” “A” or “B”?

@SeerPenguin, I was trying to make it easy for other proposals to add more groups (independent of these) later.  Having a single “groups” column then causes problems with people that idle and then come back, with groups having been defined while they were away.

Peer pressure.

@Tiberias, there is no reason legal values could not be added to the Groups column.

Cov

Will vote for on a Proposal that makes this less complicated, but I don’t have the time to write it up right now.

Hmm, how is the specific group you’re in shown? As far as I can tell, the only way to be in a group at all is to have a value of X and that doesn’t say which group.

CoV

@Seer: Yes, it’s trivial to add legal values to the groups column.  The problem comes when we add a group C that gets assigned randomly, and then someone unidles that is in A or B but not C, how do you write the rules to consider assigning them to group C only if group C was added since they idled?

@Darth: There is a column for each group.  If you have an “X” in the group’s column, you are in that group.  Thus, if you’re in group A, Seer is in group B, and I haven’t yet been assigned to a group, the GNDT will look something like this:

| A | B |
| X | _ | Darth Cliche
| _ | X | SeerPenguin
| ? | ? | Tiberias

PS. Apparently the pre tag doesn’t work, so the formatting is horrible here.

like the idea but too complicated.

@Tiberias: The proposal doesn’t make that clear at all (I interpret “The membership of each group is tracked by its own GNDT column” as “There is a GNDT column for group membership”).

“A blognomicer is in a group if and only if they have a value of “X” in the corresponding column.” seems entirely clear and unambiguous.

I admire the intricate craftsmanship here, but it does seem a bit fiddly, and rather too abstract.

s/k

@Kevan: I had interpreted it as “‘X’ in the Group column means that a blognomicer is in a group, as opposed to not in one.”

@Darth, so I should have worded it as “the column corresponding to that group” instead of “the corresponding column”?

@Tiberias: Perhaps; that would have probably cleared thins up. Either way, you probably should have just made one column.

Until this has some kind of viable usage or is explained in a more elegant way.