Sunday, October 23, 2011

Proposal: No quiet awakenings

Passed: 15-8-3 - Amnistar

Adminned at 25 Oct 2011 13:48:02 UTC

Amend rule 1.2 by replacing

Admins may render an Artist Idle if that Artist has asked to become Idle in the last seven days or if that Artist 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 an Artist Idle or remove their Idle status (“de-idling”) if one or more of the following conditions are met:

  1. That Artist has made a blog post (an Idling Post) requesting this change in the last seven days;
  2. That Artist has made a comment requesting this change on the most recent Idling Post, and that post was made in the last seven days;
  3. That Artist is the Admin themselves;
  4. That Artist has not posted an entry or comment in the last seven days, and the action to be performed is idling, not de-idling.

In the first three cases, the Admin must announce the change in either a comment on the relevant blog post (if they performed the change to themselves, then any Idling Post posted within the last seven days is considered relevant) or by making a new blog post; in the last case, it must be announced by the Admin in a new blog post. An Artist can only be de-idled if they did not go idle within the same dynasty in the previous four days, the previous conditions notwithstanding.

and removing

Admins may de-Idle an Artist at their request, and Idle Admins may de-idle themselves at any time, unless the idle Artist in question asked to become (or rendered themselves) Idle within the previous 4 days, and within the current dynasty.

If the Proposal “1, 2, 3, 5, Can I Have A Little More” has passed, amend rule 3.2 by replacing

No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, and Declaration of Victory.


No entry may be more than one of the following official types of post: Proposal, Call for Judgement, Declaration of Victory, and Idling Post.

If the dynastic rule 2.1 titled “Works of Art” exists, then amend it by replacing

Whenever an Artist posts a blog entry which is not a Proposal, Call for Judgment, Declaration of Victory or Ascension Address


Whenever an Artist posts a blog entry which is not a Proposal, Call for Judgment, Declaration of Victory, Ascension Address or Idling Post

Add to the glossary the following:

Idling Post
Any post within which an Artist requests to be idled or de-idled, or which is specifically designated as an idling post and nothing else.

Right now, anyone can send a carrier pigeon to an admin requesting to be de-idled, and then ten years later, an admin can perform that request silently. I know I didn’t notice a few de-idlings in the recent invasion until they actually voted, and imagine the case of someone voting and then being silently de-idled a minute later; we might never know, causing votes to be miscounted!

This doesn’t lead to a deluge of spam, since de-idlings at the start of a dynasty can be contained within the comments of one post.

I let admins announce idlings/de-idlings requested by comment in new blog post just in case a post gets locked for whatever reason; admins would be expected to apply discretion and use a comment wherever possible.

I allow idling posts to be created with no actual idling/deidling request so that one can be created, for example, at the start of a dynasty, to keep all de-idlings together.

This has unfortunately not gotten any less messy since the last draft! But this makes sure Idling Posts are a proper type of official post and the like. It’s not that bad, really. If “1, 2, 3, 5, Can I Have A Little More” passes, then this is unfortunately in conflict with the Drafts draft; apologies, I just didn’t want to make this any longer than it is. Hopefully this will be resolved before the Drafts draft becomes a proposal, anyway. :-)


Prince Anduril:

10-23-2011 16:56:39 UTC

I’m going to vote for in the hope that I don’t see yet another version of this.


10-23-2011 17:03:23 UTC

for unless someone discovers that it’s broken.


10-23-2011 17:09:08 UTC



10-23-2011 17:15:09 UTC



10-23-2011 17:19:38 UTC



10-23-2011 17:31:33 UTC



10-23-2011 17:35:48 UTC

against Too complicated. I’ll try somewhat less wordy as soon as I get a Proposal slot.


10-23-2011 17:47:43 UTC

Chronos: Well, two replacements are for compatibility with this dynasty, which looks set to end, and for another proposal. One of the blocks is a /removal/. I appreciate that it seems pretty complicated, but if you try and get the semantics right and keep compatibility with the dynasty and other proposals as I’ve done here, it’ll pretty much end up the same.

Can I ask you to consider making a proposal that assumes this one passes and cleans up its wording? That would reduce conflicts, compared to an entirely independent proposal.


10-23-2011 18:12:56 UTC

for though it seems the proposal referenced as “1, 2, 3, 5, Can I Have A Little More” is actually titled “1, 2, 3, 4, Can I Have A Little More” (the reference uses the draft’s name, which is different than the finalized version’s) so an admin may want to clean that up if possible (would it qualify as a typographical error?).


10-23-2011 18:15:27 UTC



10-23-2011 18:37:32 UTC

monqy: Ah; that bug is also present in, where I copied the reference from, because it was the title of the original draft, which was corrected when it went to proposal stage.

I think it qualifies as an unambiguous reference, though. Unless someone makes a proposal with that exact title. If they do, I’ll hurt them.


10-23-2011 18:44:29 UTC

[zuff] and [monqy] Admin’s power to correct typos, under rule 1.1, covers only Ruleset typos.

My interpretation here, if I enact this proposal, will be to not enact the contingent part - since no proposal title 1,2,3,5 etc. will have been passed - and immediately post a CfJ to the effect of the missing part.


10-23-2011 18:47:27 UTC

Don’t make it a CFJ. It won’t be urgent. The effects of idling posts and proposals are sufficiently disjoint that it won’t be necessary.


10-23-2011 18:48:25 UTC

Sorry zuff, my bad


10-23-2011 18:51:33 UTC

southpointingchariot: No problem! It was my fault for not double-checking. :)


10-23-2011 19:01:01 UTC

against because this won’t stay in the rules more than three dynasties before it’s arbitrarily, and probably incorrectly, chopped down for being too complex. (I remember my two arbitrary + one core rule for proposal slots, and the complexity was the only thing in that that upset people; and it was rather simpler than this.)

Ienpw III:

10-23-2011 19:08:10 UTC

Actually,  against per chronos


10-23-2011 19:10:29 UTC

Ienpw: Which part of what Chronos said?


10-23-2011 19:28:58 UTC



10-23-2011 19:57:45 UTC



10-23-2011 20:19:48 UTC

for , although I’m worried about the 1,2,3,5 reference, it doesn’t look scammable.


10-23-2011 20:27:27 UTC



10-23-2011 21:09:38 UTC

Just a note: There’s now a proposal going through that, if this and 1,2,3,4 pass, will fix the issue left in the ruleset.


10-23-2011 22:07:51 UTC

against Too complicated


10-24-2011 00:16:45 UTC

for COV. I’ve tried my hand on simplifying it and it’s not that Trivial. I think this is a good step into the right direction. Once all Proposals on this subject are processed, I’ll give it another try.


10-24-2011 03:18:13 UTC



10-24-2011 04:14:03 UTC

against Agree on too complicated


10-24-2011 04:25:34 UTC

arthexis: Well… this actually replaces two very similar paragraphs with two paragraphs and a list.

The rest is compatibility with another proposal and the current dynastic rules.

I’m open to suggestions, but Chronos is already planning to make a proposal after this passes to simplify the wording; it’s certainly not as easy as it looks to get the desired effect with simpler wording, but I think Chronos has an idea for it.


10-24-2011 05:46:27 UTC


Prince Anduril:

10-24-2011 13:29:03 UTC

Sgeo - I looked into the scam. The obvious one is to create such a proposal with something to the effect of:

“If this proposal is amended in any way, Prince Anduril achieves victory.”

within it, along with ensuring the required text is in the rule.

I decided on reflection that such an amendment to the rules might be picked up by one or two people.


10-24-2011 13:35:45 UTC



10-24-2011 16:07:14 UTC



10-24-2011 17:57:22 UTC


Ienpw III:

10-24-2011 20:14:02 UTC

Zuff: The part where this could be much more concise.


10-24-2011 23:56:50 UTC



10-25-2011 02:50:02 UTC



10-25-2011 18:00:27 UTC