Saturday, October 22, 2011

Draft II: No quiet awakenings

Amend rule 1.2 by replacing

Admins may render an Artist Idle if that Artist has asked to become Idle in the last seven days or if that Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. In the latter case, the Admin must announce the idling in a blog post.

with

Admins may render an Artist Idle or remove their Idle status (“de-idling”) if one or more of the following conditions are met:

  1. That Artist has made a blog post requesting this change in the last seven days (an idling post);
  2. That Artist has made a comment requesting this change on the most recent idling post;
  3. That Artist is the Admin themselves;
  4. That Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days, and the action to be performed is idling, not de-idling.

In the first three cases, the Admin must announce the change in either a comment on the relevant blog post (if they performed the change to themselves, then any idling post posted within the last seven days is considered relevant) or by making a new blog post; in the last case, it must be announced by the Admin in a new blog post. An Artist can only be de-idled if they did not go idle within the same dynasty in the previous four days, the previous conditions notwithstanding.

and removing

Admins may de-Idle an Artist at their request, and Idle Admins may de-idle themselves at any time, unless the idle Artist in question asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous 4 days, and within the current dynasty.

Add to the glossary the following:

Idling post
Any post made within the last seven days within which an Artist requests to be idled or de-idled.

Right now, anyone can send a carrier pigeon to an admin requesting to be de-idled, and then ten years later, an admin can perform that request silently. I know I didn’t notice a few de-idlings in the recent invasion until they actually voted, and imagine the case of someone voting and then being silently de-idled a minute later; we might never know, causing votes to be miscounted!

This doesn’t lead to a deluge of spam, since de-idlings at the start of a dynasty can be contained within the comments of one post.

I let admins announce idlings/de-idlings requested by comment in new blog post just in case a post gets locked for whatever reason; admins would be expected to apply discretion and use a comment wherever possible.


Fixes incorporated from coppro and Ornithopter.

Again, any wording suggestions welcome. Note that the second point is /not/ susceptible to people making idling/de-idling comments on a post older than seven days, because the first point and the glossary entry mandate that the only posts that are idling posts must be less than seven days old.

Comments

Prince Anduril:

22-10-2011 22:24:42 UTC

against Still don’t see the necessity for this.

Prince Anduril:

22-10-2011 22:25:05 UTC

(and I know this isn’t a proposal yet, but that’s what I’d vote if it was)

zuff:

22-10-2011 22:27:34 UTC

Anduril: Well, in the heat of CotC, several people de-idled and we didn’t even notice until they voted. It is definitely abusable.

Also, we can’t trust admins to have actually received a request to de-idle. Sure, we’re meant to trust admins in general, but then why do they even need to receive a request?

Prince Anduril:

22-10-2011 22:43:07 UTC

Sorry. Completely misunderstood the issue. Still seems a bit complex, but I guess I’m in favour in principle.

Ornithopter:

22-10-2011 22:53:22 UTC

There’s still an “any idling post within the last seven days” in the paragraph under the list.

I’m not sure the definition of “idling post” needs to include the seven day limit, but I’m really hungry, so I’m not willing to sit here and think it through at the moment.

zuff:

22-10-2011 22:57:34 UTC

Ornithopter: It does; otherwise someone could make a comment on a ten year old idling post and it’d count.

You’re right about the redundancy; I’ll remove that when I post the actual proposal. (That’s an advantage of keeping it part of the definition.)

Ornithopter:

23-10-2011 04:21:08 UTC

The seven day rule is necessary, yes, but I don’t think it needs to be set up in such a way that an idling post ceases to be an idling post seven days after it’s made. We can just as easily say “Idling posts older than seven days are still idling posts, but comments on them don’t count.” As it is now, there will inevitably be some sort of scam wherein a post is made and then seven days later it ceases to be an idling post and becomes the key to victory. It doesn’t actually work under the current Dynastic Rules, but you can see the rough outline of a scam based on an innocent post suddenly becoming a Work of Art.

zuff:

23-10-2011 06:01:00 UTC

Ah; the problem is that idling posts /are/ Works of Art by this current proposal. I’ll fix it by using “an idling post less than seven days old” in the three relevant places, and have it amend the Works of Art rule to not include idling posts.

Sound good?

Ornithopter:

23-10-2011 14:47:29 UTC

arrow