Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Proposal: Making Sure Some Things Will Never Happen Again

Quorumed with Spam-a-Little -Darth

Adminned at 04 Feb 2009 16:01:24 UTC

In core rule 1.2 Members of the Staff, after the sentence, “If anybody is suspected of controlling more than one Member of the Staff, then a Proposal may be made to remove any number of such Member of the Staff from the game, and to bar the perpetrator from rejoining,” add the following:

“If anybody is suspected of intentionally tampering with the game medium (which is to say, at this time, ExpressionEngine) in an attempt to subvert the ruleset/gamestate or alter the ruleset/gamestate in a way not proscribed by the rules, then a Proposal may be made to remove any such Member of the Staff from the game, and to bar the perpetrator from rejoining.”

If more than half of the counted votes in this proposal also include the word “Spam-a-Little,” then continue the above addition with the following:

“If anybody is suspected of intentionally spamming Blognomic, then a Proposal may be made to remove any such Member of the Staff from the game, and to bar the perpetrator from rejoining.”

I believe that spammers have already been banned in the past, but I don’t think it would hurt to have a rule included about it in this section.



02-03-2009 04:40:08 UTC

for  Spam-a-Little,...


02-03-2009 04:46:53 UTC

for spam-a-little


02-03-2009 04:47:30 UTC

for  Spam-a-Little


02-03-2009 04:48:46 UTC

for spam-a-little


02-03-2009 04:50:23 UTC

Guys, you have to include the comma, as it is in the quotation marks.


02-03-2009 04:51:20 UTC

for Spam-a-little,


02-03-2009 04:52:09 UTC

for ok then. Spam-a-little,


02-03-2009 04:52:29 UTC

for Spam-a-little


02-03-2009 04:55:03 UTC

Btw, Spam-a-Little, isn’t really a word if you ask me. Words don’t have commas.  for


02-03-2009 04:56:10 UTC

Haha, um, I don’t think you really need a comma, it’s technically not a part of the “word.”


02-03-2009 04:57:21 UTC

Same time as Clucky.

Explicit author for



02-03-2009 05:45:07 UTC

Spam-a-Little,  for


02-03-2009 07:04:46 UTC


Do we really need to know when somebody posts at the same time?

Spam-a-Little is a compound word


02-03-2009 09:39:04 UTC

imperial This would make more sense as a separate (and rationalised) welcome-and-etiquette guide, or maybe a glossary section; we don’t need to bloat the core ruleset with it.


02-03-2009 12:23:51 UTC

I say “posted at the same time” whever someone else says something similar to me, at the same time.

A welcome-and-etiquette guide would be great, especially one with binding force (which seems to be needed, nowadays).


02-03-2009 14:09:34 UTC

for Spam-a-Little


02-03-2009 19:18:44 UTC

Spam-a-Little,  for Just in case


02-03-2009 19:20:38 UTC

@Kevan: I recommend creating a separate wiki document with the rules of conduct for the game, and then including a brief mention on rule 1.1 which gives that document a legal binding.


02-03-2009 19:26:25 UTC


I agree with Kevan.  Additionally there is nothing stopping such a proposal being made in any case

Wooden Squid:

02-03-2009 20:19:04 UTC

for Spam-a-little,


02-03-2009 21:38:20 UTC

It’s definitely more fair to do things in an over-the-table manner, where all users can see easily what sort of misbehavior is unacceptable, rather than just banning a Member without a rule broken. Ideally, there would be a separate document or at least section of the ruleset dealing with such issues.


02-04-2009 16:15:00 UTC

against I think we should instead create a wiki page that is ‘expected behaviors’ or ‘guide to player etiquette’ or something that includes a list of behaviors then have it stated that if players are found tol be breaking the rules within that document, then they can expect to be banned.


02-04-2009 23:31:04 UTC


1Qwaz - Spam
2Rod - Spam
3Dark Spam
4Dart Spam
5Cluck Spam
6Wooden Squid - Sapm
7Sparrow - Spam
8Arth Spam