Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Proposal: Fair Play Shall Be Needed.  Not Should, But Shall.

Self-killed. - Devenger

Adminned at 29 Apr 2009 13:02:26 UTC

Replace the text of rule 3.6 Fair Play with the following text:

The following are BlogNomic’s rules of fair play. If any of the rules are found to have been broken, a proposal or CfJ may be made to remove the perpetrator from the game, and bar them from rejoining.

  * A single person shall not control more than one Scripter within BlogNomic.
  * A Scripter shall not “spam” the BlogNomic blog. What counts as spamming is subjective, but would typically include posting more than ten blog entries in a day, more than ten blog comments in a row, or posting a blog entry of more than 1000 words.
  * A Scripter shall not deliberately exploit bugs or unexpected behaviours in the software running the game (ExpressionEngine, MediaWiki or the GNDT).
  * Instead of deleting content from a blog post which has at least one comment, the content should either be struck through with

tags, or replaced with a link to a copy of the same content on the wiki.
  * A Scripter shall not edit their own blog comments once posted, nor those of any other Scripter.
  * A Scripter shall not edit the “Entry Date” field of a blog post.

Replacing important Shoulds with Shalls.  Because Should allows you to ignore these rules, mostly.

Comments

Rodlen:

28-04-2009 16:47:11 UTC

Not that this has much effect anyway, as Fair Play is in the ambiguity clarification zone, and can only clarify stuff.

ais523:

28-04-2009 17:05:28 UTC

for May as well. I trust you not to have snuck a scam into that particular rules change (sorry, been playing a lot of Agora recently and assuming there’s a scam in every proposal is par for the course there if you’re paranoid like me).

Devenger:

28-04-2009 17:37:25 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

28-04-2009 17:46:26 UTC

against You didn’t escape the <strike> - you’re changing “struck to with <strike> tags” to “struck through with tags”.

If you’re only changing one word repeatedly (I don’t know if the leftover “should” in point 4 is intentional), you can just say “replace X with Y throughout this rule”.

Josh: he/him

28-04-2009 17:59:45 UTC

against Per Kevan.

Hix:

28-04-2009 18:20:23 UTC

I unidle to vote on this proposal.  Quorum rises to 8.

against

These ought to be “should”, suggesting that enforcement will be determined on a case-by-case basis.  “shall” would mean that such actions are always illegal, and thus cannot affect the Gamestate, even though sometimes they ought to be able to do so. 

For example, if a player wants to change names, most likely there will be a brief period of time where it is arguable that the player “controlled more than one Scripter”.

And there have been several instances where a responsible admin ought to be able to legally violate the last three bullet points—while cleaning up spam, for example.

Devenger:

28-04-2009 18:21:19 UTC

Surely ‘struck through with tags’ still makes sense, grammatically and in game terms? the ‘strike’ tag is the only tag that strikes things through. Thus if you must strike something through with tags, you must use the ‘strike’ tag - surely?

ais523:

28-04-2009 18:29:15 UTC

@Devenger: or the <del> tag, which looks the same. Or <s>, the abbreviation. In a way, though, I’d prefer “tag that looks like a strikeout” to “tag that is <strike> in particular”.

Qwazukee:

28-04-2009 20:08:45 UTC

against  per Hix

Devenger:

28-04-2009 20:20:44 UTC

against Okay, per above comments.

Rodlen:

28-04-2009 20:48:05 UTC

against S/K