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:
Not that this has much effect anyway, as Fair Play is in the ambiguity clarification zone, and can only clarify stuff.
ais523:
Devenger:
Kevan: he/him
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
Hix:
I unidle to vote on this proposal. Quorum rises to 8.
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:
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:
@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:
Devenger:
Rodlen: