“Any unidle Driver may submit an Idling Post or Idling Comment requesting themselves to be idled.

Any idle Driver [...] may submit an Idling Post or Idling Comment requesting themselves to be unidled.

Any Admin may accordingly render a Driver Idle or remove their Idle status (“unidling”), if that Driver has made a valid Idling Post or Idling Comment in the last seven days.”

Doesn’t “accordingly” refer to these last two sentences, and cover the loophole you’re talking about?

Btw, you cannot idle me, because I’m already idled :-)

“then that Idle Crimminals is” should be “then those Idle Crimminals are”

“(...) or by adding a comment to a post where another driver requested to go idle, another driver requested to unidle, or an admin announced a driver idling or unidling, which was made within the last seven days.” So, if I comment in an “idling post”, I go idle. Needs rephrasing. Same for the unidling paragraph.

Third paragraph should start with “An Idle Crimminal may request to go unidle”, not “go idle”.

Last paragraph should have “(...)regarding idling or unidling in one.”

And, not that it is important, Criminal has only one “m”.

[Clucky] Bucky fixed the two-year-old-idle-request loophole last September. Zuff from Agora proposed the formality in October, during Agora’s group outing to BlogNomic, apparently concerned that BlogNomic’s system was too quiet and casual.

I think we can live without “idling posts” and just say that any comment or blog post is a valid request. (If you want to make a request in the middle of a proposal discussion, and nobody spots it, then that’s your problem, and you can just try again somewhere else.)

“within the last seven days and has not posted a request to unidle since then” is neat, although I think we can eliminate it entirely by just dropping that seven down to four.

Eh, here’s a stab at taking our original Idle rule and fixing the only real things which I can see were broken (that a player could be unidled without any other players being aware of it, and that an unidling player could be idled against their will if their original idle request was still less than a week old). It also removes the archaic “de-idle” (which I don’t think anyone actually uses in practice?) and the requirement for admins to announce their own idlings (which seems unnecessary).

“An Admin may render a Player Idle if that Player has asked to become Idle in an entry or comment from the past four days, or if that Player has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. In the latter case, the Admin must announce the idling in a blog post. Admins may render themselves Idle at any time. Admins may Unidle a Player at that Player’s request, and Idle Admins may Unidle themselves at any time, unless the idle Survivor in question asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous four days, and within the current dynasty.”

(There’s a diff here to show how it differs from our old idling rule.)

Either way, I think silence is underrated here - Clucky’s requirement that every idling be announced in a new blog post seems unnecessarily noisy, even when grouped. And the more requirements we attach to the process, the messier it gets when someone misreads or forgets a step. (We will have to wave our hands and say “all idlings and unidlings since October were legal, even when the admin forgot to announce things properly”, just in case, I think.) Any time I glance over at Agora they seem to be having a lot of fun debating whether or not someone’s join request was legal, but I think we do things differently here.

Ah, “Admins may Unidle a Player at that Player’s request” would also have to be “An Admin may Unidle a Player if that Player has asked to become Unidle in an entry or comment from the past four days”.

Is it worth having a glossary entry saying something along the lines of “a player can combine any number of actions that require individual blog posts into a single post if appropriate”?

@Josh, may be, if more carefully worded. The way you put it, you can make 2 proposals into one blog post.”

@Kevan—players joining and leaving is a fairly essential part of the game. Having someone join hidden in a comment somewhere and then no announcement made might cause a lot of people to completely miss the fact that they joined.

[Clucky] Is that such a bad thing, though? They’ll be in the sidebar, they’ll be in the GNDT, and you’ll notice them voting and proposing before too long. I can’t imagine any situations where this would really be a problem, but I can imagine a situation where an inattentive admin says “You’re unidled!” in a comment instead of a blog post, and unless someone realises the mistake, we have an illegal ghost player.