Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Proposal: Equity or, “treat as done that wihch ought to have been done”

S-K.—Chronos

Adminned at 21 Jul 2006 07:41:47 UTC

This should plug the specific loophole through which Bucky has slid

Replace the following passage from Rule 1.2:

Some Travellers are idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules 1.1 and 1.2, idle Travellers are not counted as Travellers. Admin may render a Traveller idle if that Traveller has failed to vote for more than a week, or if it has asked to become idle. Admins may un-idle a Traveller at eir request - the Traveller’s personal gamestate retains the values it had immediately prior to eir idling.

with

Some Travellers are idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of the Ruleset, excluding Rules 1.1 and 1.2, idle Travellers are not counted as Travellers. Admin may render a Traveller idle if that Traveller has failed to vote for more than a week, or if it has asked to become idle. Admins may un-idle a Traveller at eir request - the Traveller’s personal gamestate generally retains the values it had immediately prior to eir idling.  If during the Traveller’s idleness however, game events occurred that would have affected the traveller had e been active, the Admin who removes the traveller’s idle status must apply the effects of those changes to the now active traveller.

If more than half of the comments on this proposal containing counted votes contain the word “retroactive”, reduce Bucky’s influence by 10.

Comments

Bucky:

19-07-2006 13:50:47 UTC

against
The purpose of having the idle category is to protect a Traveller from game activity in which e has no say.

As an example, a Rule “If a Traveller does not change eir TL at least occasionally, e loses 10 Influence”  or something similar.

ChronosPhaenon:

19-07-2006 13:55:23 UTC

against Idleness is a protective stance for travellers who need a few days off.

Thelonious:

19-07-2006 13:57:27 UTC

This just seems like a bad idea to me.  Amongst other things it would require keeping track of all the activities that should affect the Traveller and then apply them when e becomes active again.  Think what a menace that could be.  For example, in the last dynasty, the Abbot occasionally posted messages that reduced everybody’s integrity by a certain amount.  Now imagine a couple more rules like that and suddenly trying to unidle somebody who has been away for a couple of weeks will be a complete nightmare.

That said, I still think we should punish Bucky for the scam.  So against (but “retroactive” just in case it passes anyway)

Shadowclaw:

19-07-2006 14:28:05 UTC

I place a retroactive against vote here.

Hix:

19-07-2006 15:47:17 UTC

against agreed with all comments above.  A case-by-case look at any such problems should suffice.

TAE:

20-07-2006 02:06:58 UTC

against
S-K