Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Call for Judgment: hasty admins

Failed 1-11 with one uncounted DEF (as DEF votes don’t count in a CfJ). DK

Adminned at 05 Dec 2010 11:30:05 UTC

Create new core rule

1.11 Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched

with the text

An admin that admins a Proposal, Call for Judgement, or Declaration of Victory before the right amount of time has elapsed, loses admin priveleges for 24 hours.

 

The Proposal “Lord, What Fools” was posted by Brendan at 01 Dec 2010 06:18:13 UTC;
it was Adminned at 01 Dec 2010 18:00:14 UTC;
or 11 hours, 42 minutes, and 1 second after being posted.

Comments

Brendan: he/him

01-12-2010 18:24:33 UTC

Hmm, I was going by the “Pending Proposals” sidebar, which said it was 12 hours old.

Roujo: he/him

01-12-2010 18:33:44 UTC

I don’t know… Sure, they should wait, but I think losing Admin privileges will be a bit hard to enforce. Let’s say an Admin admins 5 posts, the first one being a bit early. What happens then? He probably didn’t do it on purpose, so he might not notice it himself. So someone else notifies the blog, probably with a Post. The way I interpret how this is worded, it means that he lost his powers immediately, meaning he couldn’t have enacted/failed the next proposals, if any. This could lead to action taken in response to that enactment being illegal after all. Does everything get reverted? If so, I think it’s a bit hardcore. If not, why can’t we keep the current, more forgiving system?

For those reasons: against

Also:

“If two or more Divinities actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset, or if a Divinity feels that an aspect of the game needs urgent attention”

I don’t see this as being either. There is no disagreement that I can see, and I don’t think it’s that urgent. =P The current situation could have been resolved by Proposal, in my opinion. Otherwise, CfJs tend to resemble extra proposal slots.

SethOcean:

01-12-2010 18:53:05 UTC

For “urgent” I used the meaning “earnest and persistent” in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/urgent

I agree this subject does not require immediate action. I also choose the CfJ (maybe abusing the functionality) to differentiate between the dynastic and core rules.

And ... there is no current, more forgiving system. There is no regulatory system for admins at all. Which is fine and has worked well for quite a few years so far: so fail this CfJ!

I also feel removing admin privileges for honest mistakes is an exaggeration (I just couldn’t think of something appropriate).

Josh: he/they

01-12-2010 18:55:07 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

01-12-2010 19:00:59 UTC

We’ve traditionally differentiated between dynastic and core proposals by means of… Core Proposals.  See rule 1.3 and the third entry of the Glossary.

Kevan: he/him

01-12-2010 19:08:34 UTC

against Per Roujo, although some kind of formal policing mechanism might be a good idea; it takes a lot of guts to actually step up and propose that an Admin be stripped of their power, for getting things wrong. (I think it’s only happened once.)

FuzzyLogic:

01-12-2010 19:09:57 UTC

against If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. If there hasn’t been a problem with this yet there probably never will be, and if it does ever actually happen a CfJ can fix it when it happens.

Also, my interpretation of Proposal vs CfJ is this: a proposal adds or changes rules, a CfJ fixes improper game state that is the result of a misinterpretation or breaking of the rules. Just my two cents.

Kevan: he/him

01-12-2010 19:16:21 UTC

A CfJ is also (although less commonly) for resolving disagreements over rule interpretations; Player A thinks this, Player B thinks that, so we vote for a majority interpretation and make it legally binding, without having to wait for the Proposal queue to clear.

ais523:

01-12-2010 19:17:28 UTC

Doing this platonically (i.e. revoking automatically) would be incredibly difficult to sort out; it would mean that the admin in question counted as not an admin for the purpose of the rules, but the blog wouldn’t notice and would let people admin things anyway.
It should be noted that after a proposal’s adminned early, though, under the current ruleset, the proposal never counts as having been adminned (as adminning a proposal early is impossible), and thus every proposal after that can’t be adminned because it isn’t at the back of the queue. If it isn’t noticed for months, no gameplay happens in all that time. I think that this really needs fixing, but my attempts to do so have all been rejected in case they’re scammed….

Someone should probably go back and re-admin the originally misadminned proposal, incidentally, unless someone has already.

Brendan: he/him

01-12-2010 19:26:47 UTC

I have. Tada.

SethOcean:

01-12-2010 19:28:41 UTC

LOL politics is fun!
And we have only about 8 pages of rules!

(Sorry for abusing CfJs. I’ll behave better next time)

Blacky:

01-12-2010 19:30:36 UTC

against

Roujo: he/him

01-12-2010 19:33:27 UTC

No harm done. =)
When I was new, I also did/suggested things that went in the way of game custom - I just didn’t know what that was exactly, so I learned. (^_^)

Also, wanna have fun with twisted politics? =P

http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt

Ambisinister:

01-12-2010 19:37:02 UTC

against

Blacky:

01-12-2010 19:45:20 UTC

8-O I knew Agora was complex, but that…

Alecto:

01-12-2010 20:12:53 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

01-12-2010 20:25:16 UTC

Um yeah, mistakes happen. If an admin continually makes mistakes then that will be delt with, but automating the process is unnessary.

Darknight: he/him

01-12-2010 21:29:27 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

02-12-2010 08:38:02 UTC

against

Subrincinator:

02-12-2010 08:57:42 UTC

imperial

Brendan: he/him

02-12-2010 18:19:56 UTC

against

lilomar:

04-12-2010 19:29:11 UTC

against