Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Proposal: Golden Handkerchief

Times Out and Fails 3-5. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 25 Oct 2013 11:20:40 UTC

In Rule 1.2.1, replace “Admins may render themselves Idle at any time provided they’ve made a post or comment declaring their intent to do so in the past four days.” with:-

Admins may render themselves Idle at any time.

If an MN has the name Bucky, Clucky, Josh, Larrytheturtle, Murphy, Purplebeard, quirck, RaichuKFM, scshunt, Spitemaster or turtlemoon they are considered Present. Any MN who joined the game or ceased being Idle after this Proposal was posted is also considered Present. Upon enactment of this proposal, if an MN is Present and also Idle, they shall no longer be Idle; if an MN is neither Present nor Idle, they shall be made Idle.

Under Rule 1.2.1 I am required to declare my intention to idle myself before idling myself. Hello everyone! I intend to idle myself, and may as well drop this amendment in on my way out. The “admins must idle loudly” clause was added in May 2013, when a dynasty had an automagical gamestate trigger whenever anyone became idle. No other dynasty needs this, and by saying “if an admin idles silently or using the wrong words, they remain unidle even if nobody notices” we’re just giving ourselves another way for the visible gamestate to drift out of sync with the platonic one.

Here’s my previous attempt to remove this. I’ve added an “everyone who should be idle is idle” clause in case any mistakes have been made by self-idling admins since May.

Comments

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

23-10-2013 15:12:55 UTC

for I like having an extra tactical option as a result of my admin status.

Kevan: HE/HIM

23-10-2013 15:32:13 UTC

[Josh] It’s already there, just say “I intend to idle myself” somewhere, every four days.

Clucky: HE/HIM

23-10-2013 17:52:56 UTC

against For the same reasons as explained before. Its not like there has only been one dynasty where idling effects things. As it is not technically required that an admin comments out their entry in the GNDT, I’d rather make all idles loud. Admins should not have “extra tactical options”

RaichuKFM: SHE/HER

23-10-2013 18:28:03 UTC

against Per Clucky and past me if you follow Kevan’s link. Admins must make a post to idle someone due to inactivity, or a comment if an idle was requested. That hasn’t screwed up gamestate. How hard is it to make a post saying “I idle”?

quirck: HE/HIM

23-10-2013 20:49:41 UTC

for

Larrytheturtle:

24-10-2013 01:06:44 UTC

against per Clucky and RaichuKFM.

Bucky:

24-10-2013 02:01:04 UTC

against per RaichuKFM

Purplebeard:

24-10-2013 06:44:33 UTC

for

Kevan: HE/HIM

24-10-2013 08:45:54 UTC

[RaichuKFM] Admins are not required to post a comment if idling a player by request. They have to announce an inactivity idle because not telling a player that they have been idled is more likely to screw up gamestate.

It’s easy to make a post saying “I intend to idle myself”. It’s also easy to idle yourself and then announce “I idle”, and easy for older, returning admins to overlook the rule change and just idle themselves silently. Two of these three easy things leave us with a ghost player under the current rule, and are also easy to miss.

Skimming the archives for relevant phrases, it looks like Ienpw may have idled himself without declaring an intent beforehand back in June, which would mean that he’s still active today, and quorum has been 1 higher here and there over the past four months. (Ironically that post also includes an admin making an illegal inactivity idle in its comments, which wasn’t noticed until a day later.)

Kevan: HE/HIM

24-10-2013 08:51:07 UTC

(Sorry, wrong link, there, this is the post I meant.)

quirck: HE/HIM

24-10-2013 09:20:37 UTC

So, if this fails, we should every time when enacting a proposal carefully watch the sidebar so as to ensure nobody illegally vanished. I think allowing admins idle as they wish is better, since then not noticing idling is less harm (if any). If they get “inadvertently idled by something else”, they are likely to undo idling themselves. And yeah, let’s try to avoid automagic changes to the gamestate.

RaichuKFM: SHE/HER

24-10-2013 12:31:14 UTC

Would it be possible to get a notification every time the Players/Quorum template changes? That would be convenient, but I don’t know if it’s feasible.

Kevan: HE/HIM

24-10-2013 12:50:01 UTC

The template output itself can be accessed directly at http://blognomic.com/blognomic/playerlist - you could use a service that emails you when a web page is altered (like this one), or someone could write a script that pinged the player list every few hours and updated an ongoing, dated history of its changes. (I’m happy to have a go at some point if nobody else does.)

RaichuKFM: SHE/HER

24-10-2013 18:03:04 UTC

Thank you, Kevan. Good luck with the script.

Clucky: HE/HIM

24-10-2013 18:03:34 UTC

Maybe we should make loud idles a SHOULD? I still think loud idles help everyone, but agree with the point that there are more problems caused if someone silent idles against the rules and no one notices

RaichuKFM: SHE/HER

24-10-2013 18:19:53 UTC

I’d prefer it a must, but I would not oppose making it a should.

Clucky: HE/HIM

24-10-2013 18:28:24 UTC

Does EE have any kind of bot support? If we could automatically detect when the player list changes and make a post from there it would solve both issues.

quirck: HE/HIM

24-10-2013 19:16:47 UTC

RaichuKFM, quorum is 7 since Kevan is not idle :D

jeo:

24-10-2013 21:06:16 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

25-10-2013 08:24:11 UTC

quirck: I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. Kevan announced his intent to idle himself and removed himself from the player list, so he is definitely idle.

quirck: HE/HIM

25-10-2013 08:25:56 UTC

So flavor text counts here?

Purplebeard:

25-10-2013 09:26:24 UTC

Rereading the rules, it doesn’t. I’ll go sit in the corner now.

Kevan: HE/HIM

25-10-2013 09:48:00 UTC

Irony! That wasn’t intentional. In case it’s necessary, I announce another intent to idle myself, and idle myself if I wasn’t already idle.