(Diffing the two versions of Rule 1.2, the only changes are removing the Admin sentence, and dropping Rule 1.8 from the exemptions.)

I assume the 1.8 exemption was to stop anything weird happening if the Emperor idled out - “Each Dynasty is headed by a single Player known as the Emperor” means that we’d have to somehow automatically assign a new Emperor when the present one idled out. The Veto clause is actually redundant, as Rule 1.4 already gives VETO as a possible vote “if the Votable Matter is a Proposal and the @ is the RNG”.

Idle adminning seems a bit odd, but I don’t know how many idle admins are lurking, or how confident they’d be about enacting a proposal in a dynasty they weren’t playing (either by missing a dynastic change to the voting system and breaking a rule, or being out of the loop on the game direction and enacting a timed-out controversy that players were just agreeing to veto in another thread). If anything, though, I’d worry that an idle admin army would just give active admins a reason to be a bit lazier and leave a pending proposal for someone else to catch, without actually increasing the chance of proposals being enacted. Could try it for a bit to see what difference it makes, though.

I could be wrong, but wouldn’t this allow Admins to ignore any special dynastic rules for voting, since they are exempt from those rules?

With this revision, I am not sure that there is such a thing as an Idle Admin.

@Kevan: Certainly I have a tendency to get annoyed if I visit and see red proposals in the queue. And while this may make active admins lazier, they’re already pretty lazy - or at least, they have been for the last couple of dynasties.

@h2g2guy: Yes, that’s certainly the case - any future dynastic proposals that tamper with proposal resolution would need to be idle-admin-proofed. I think it’s easier to do that as and when it happens than try to write the loophole into the core rules, however.

.  Among other objections:

*If Rule 1.8 cannot take into account idle @s, it messes with dynastic naming.
*Since the “except where explicitly referred to as idle @s” got dropped from the “Idle @s are not counted as @s” sentence, and Rule 1.2.1 doesn’t have an exception, “Some @s are Admins” doesn’t include idle @s. As a result, the “idle admin” powers do nothing.

@Bucky - Fair enough on rule 1.8.

I disagree on your second point, as the second paragraph of 1.2.1 explicitly refers to “idle admins” who may make limited use of their powers. As both “idle” and “admin” are defined terms, a further ruleset exemption isn’t necessary.

@Josh: Tell me on which step you disagree with me.
1)Under the current wording, “idle @” is an oxymoron outside of rules 1.1, 1.2, and 1.10. 
2)The phrase “Some @s are Admins” outside of Rule 1.2 therefore does not permit idle @s to be Admins.
3)Since there are no idle @s that are Admins as far as the definition of Admin is concerned, the rules dealing with idle Admins don’t do anything.

Step 3.

It’s the classic venn diagram problem: some @s are admins, as per rule 1.2.1, but not all admins have to be @s. Once an @ has become an admin they are both an admin and an @; just because they cease to be an @ doesn’t mean that they cease to be an admin. By explicitly entitling idle admins as a class, the proposal confers upon them both powers and limitations.

If you accept the logic that, under the present ruleset, an idle @ is an @ for rule 1.2, and is thus an admin, and thus continues to be an admin under the terms of rule 1.5 - and I hope that you do, because otherwise I adminned a load of proposals illegally - then this is simply a codification of that process. It permits them to act in a limited fashion while defining the extent to which they can abuse the privilege.

The current rule is ok. I’m not too concerned about an Idle RNG doing RNG things, that seems fine by me

If there is a disagreement about whether or not idle admins actually can perform any admin duties under the new version, I would rather stick with the old version. Changing it is just going to prompt a CfJ to change it again.