Friday, September 11, 2009

Proposal: Idle? No? Yes?

Times out 4-4 -Darth

Adminned at 13 Sep 2009 09:00:30 UTC

In Rule 1.2 Survivors, change the text:

Admins may de-Idle a Survivor at his request - the Survivor’s personal gamestate retains the values it had immediately prior to his going Idle.

to:

Admins may de-Idle a Survivor upon his request in a blog post - the Survivor’s personal gamestate retains the values it had immediately prior to his going Idle.

Fixing yuri’s secret participant problem.

Comments

Rodlen:

09-11-2009 06:54:36 UTC

for

Darknight:

09-11-2009 07:37:23 UTC

for

Kevan:

09-11-2009 08:29:18 UTC

I think Yuri’s problem is that there’s no requirement for unidle players to be explicitly listed anywhere. That there is nothing inherently illegal in sneakily removing a player from the “active” list, as it’s not gamestate (it’s only an informal representation of gamestate).

Ienpw III:

09-11-2009 10:26:33 UTC

idle against because excalabur *couldn’t* post due to a technical problem, so e asked me to unidle in IRC.

spikebrennan:

09-11-2009 14:01:59 UTC

for

Klisz:

09-11-2009 15:58:57 UTC

against  per yuri

Bucky:

09-11-2009 17:49:53 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

09-12-2009 00:32:14 UTC

This is still important to have because, otherwise, admins could technically make themselves unidle without telling anyone. Then, they could sneakily win at the last second (imagine someone doing this in the Final Challenge of the Reality TV final, it would have been disastrous).

Klisz:

09-12-2009 01:30:15 UTC

CoV for

Ienpw III:

09-12-2009 04:16:11 UTC

Yes but that would make us all hate them. If someone did that, then I’d vote FOR a ban…

arthexis:

09-12-2009 05:17:35 UTC

against Because it has technical issues (as described).

Qwazukee:

09-12-2009 05:25:42 UTC

We shouldn’t ban ppl for doing things that are legal, we should fix the loopholes in out Ruleset.

And technical problems that prevent posting until you are unidled seem rare; if it came up, we could easily pass a Proposal or CfJ to fix it.

Ienpw III:

09-12-2009 07:28:58 UTC

I didn’t say I’d ban them. I said I’d VOTE to ban them. I’d not initiate the ban. Difference.

So wait for 2-4 days for the proposal or CfJ to *expire*, let alone pass? Nah. ‘sfine

Qwazukee:

09-12-2009 12:30:35 UTC

I didn’t say *you*, I said *we*. The nomic shouldn’t get into the practice of banning people for following the rules.

And I think it’s worth waiting [probably less than a day, as I can’t see anyone voting against] to fix a bizarre and unlikely technical problem, in order to keep our Ruleset tight.

Ienpw III:

09-12-2009 15:05:11 UTC

No proposal has reached Quorum in a long time

Ienpw III:

09-12-2009 23:01:09 UTC

against unidle vote

Qwazukee:

09-12-2009 23:32:24 UTC

That just means that Quorum will keep getting smaller until Proposals ARE meeting it. . . .

Klisz:

09-13-2009 15:59:32 UTC

CoV against