Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Proposal: Idle post

5-1, but self-killed. - Ien

Adminned at 14 Jun 2013 22:07:48 UTC

Amend rule 1.2.1. to read as follows:

Some Atoms are Idle, and shall be marked as such in the sidebar. For the purposes of all Gamestate and the Ruleset, excluding Rules “Ruleset and Gamestate”, “Atoms”, “Dynasties”, “Fair Play” and any of those Rules’ subrules, Idle Atoms are not counted as Atoms.
If a Proposal contains a provision that targets a specifically named Idle Atom, then that Idle Atom is considered to be Unidle solely for the purposes of enacting that specific provision
When a Atom is unidled, if they went Idle in the same dynasty, their personal gamestate retains the last legally endowed values it had, if they are still valid. Otherwise (including if a value is invalid, does not exist, or the Atom Idled in a different dynasty), the Atom is given the default value for new Atom, if such a value exists.

An Admin may render a Atom Idle if that Atom has asked to become Idle in an entry or comment from the past four days, or if that Atom has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days. Admins may render themselves Idle at any time. An Admin may Unidle a Atom if that Atom has asked to become Unidle in an entry or comment from the past four days, and Idle Admins may Unidle themselves at any time, unless the Atom who would be Unidled asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous four days, and within the current dynasty.

Unless an Idle/Unidle request is made in a new entry, the admin who processes any Idle/Unidle shall make an entry describing the Idle/Unidle.

 

Comments

RaichuKFM:

06-12-2013 20:50:17 UTC

for Unless someone finds something wrong with something before the last bit; I am a fan of this idea.

nqeron:

06-12-2013 21:25:21 UTC

You couldn’t have just highlighted the changes or said “append”?

imperial

I’m just not sure it’s necessary. As long as idleness is tracked and timestamped, there’s not much need. Furthermore, the request to idle in comment form is relatively uncommon.

RaichuKFM:

06-12-2013 21:29:13 UTC

Silent (un)idlings could change important things if they happened mid- or late-game (Just look at Purplebeard last Dynasty), and this isn’t really hurting anything.

Skju:

06-13-2013 00:42:52 UTC

for I suppose so.

Larrytheturtle:

06-13-2013 02:22:50 UTC

for I see no problems and it is nice to be informed

Cpt_Koen:

06-13-2013 03:38:57 UTC

for It’s nice to be informed, though I think a reply to the idle post or idle comment should be enough.

Also with this wording… the Idle/Unidle request made in a new entry is not necessarily the same as the Idle/Unidle request which is being processed…

RaichuKFM:

06-13-2013 03:48:59 UTC

Oh well, easy enough fix. I’d propose one right now, but…

Kevan:

06-13-2013 08:45:44 UTC

Gnh, having to manually diff a proposal with no flavour text to see what it’s actually changing. So admins have to post a new blog entry every time they idle or unidle anybody, unless they’re processing a request that was itself a new blog entry.

What happened with Purplebeard last dynasty? I’ve never really understood the objection to “silent” changes to idle status - it removes the very thin edge case of “right, time for me to open the GNDT and lower the hit points of Purpl—wait, where did he go?” at the expense of louder blog traffic and unnecessary bureaucracy. (Bureaucracy which can potentially trip up the gamestate: last dynasty, players enacted the rule that Admins could only idle themselves “provided they’ve made a post or comment declaring their intent to do so”, which means that if an Admin forgets or doesn’t notice this rule, their “silent” self-idling would leave them invisibly active, messing up quorum.)

Ienpw III:

06-13-2013 15:22:13 UTC

which means that if an Admin forgets or doesn’t notice this rule, their “silent” self-idling would leave them invisibly active, messing up quorum

I hadn’t considered this. S/K against