Monday, March 20, 2017

Call for Judgment: No Spam Please

Reached a quorum of against votes, 1 vote to 7. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 20 Mar 2017 17:20:15 UTC

Cuddlebeam’s post https://blognomic.com/archive/explanation2 is arguably spam under the “Fair Play” rule

An Organ should not “spam” the BlogNomic blog. What counts as spamming is subjective, but would typically include posting more than ten blog entries in a day, more than ten blog comments in a row, or posting a blog entry of more than 1000 words.

Whose content is at around 1100 words long.

As punishment, do the following:
Set the gamestate to the values it had at March 20th 2017 08:46:00 UTC
Under the rule “Votable Matters” replace “When a Votable Matter is first put forward” with

When a Votable Matter is first put forward or is edited,

Then idle Cuddlebeam for at least 2 days.

I saved the html page in case Cuddlebeam has deleted it, since it was an unofficial post.

Comments

Tantusar:

03-20-2017 09:45:42 UTC

Note: Not an Organ, no rule preventing me from speaking up.

Consider changing “edited” to “is edited”, otherwise it may not cover what Cuddle has done here.

card:

03-20-2017 09:48:15 UTC

Thank you.

Cuddlebeam:

03-20-2017 09:48:43 UTC

It’s subjective but its that long because that’s the length required to explain what I’ve done. I don’t believe that it’s harmful spam like a wall of spamming a single word could be. I also feel that this is an attempt to counter my attempt to win.

Regardless, If lightly more than 1000 words is deemed to be grounds for punishing me, I’ll accept it.

Sphinx:

03-20-2017 09:53:01 UTC

against

This shouldn’t count as spam for obvious reasons in my opinion.

Also, idling for a time doesn’t work, does it? You can either idle or not idle, but can’t unidle for a few days after you were idled. Not sure about that either.

card:

03-20-2017 10:01:59 UTC

[Sphinx] Our opinions differ then, it’s above 1000 by 101 words, it should be easy to remove 102 words from that post, the first paragraph is ~130 words just by itself.

If it’s either idle or not idle then it would probably just immediately set Cuddlebeam to idle if they were unidled during those 2 days.

Cuddlebeam:

03-20-2017 10:05:14 UTC

If this was an attempt to stop my spam, then why revert the gamestate at all? (and revert it to right before I made the DoV?)

card:

03-20-2017 10:07:46 UTC

Because the DoV resulted in your spam.

Cuddlebeam:

03-20-2017 10:13:06 UTC

True, but then the punishment should be proportionate the crime, not the cause. If I steal something because I’m hungry, I shouldn’t be taken away food, I should be given a regular stealing sentence, imo. I also disagree with that it constitutes spam at all in the first place, but oh well.

Also, this is the second CfJ you’ve done in an attempt to stop the win method I’ve mentioned, so I’m a bit wary of what you’re saying. Its apparent that you’re pulling at whatever reason you can to primarily stop it the victory itself, rather than the actual issues the CfJs are said to deal with.

Viv:

03-20-2017 10:13:44 UTC

Spam or not spam,  I am deeply fatigued.

pokes:

03-20-2017 11:08:22 UTC

against I think that in this context it’s not spam.

derrick:

03-20-2017 12:49:21 UTC

against The post is not spam, but an attempt to explain a win method.

quirck:

03-20-2017 12:54:00 UTC

against

Kevan:

03-20-2017 13:12:20 UTC

against I can’t see that it counts as spam, and there’s no concern that an action would only have been valid as a result of this post being the length that it was.

Oracular rufio:

03-20-2017 14:30:24 UTC

against Not spam,  but I think we can punish Cuddlebeam for putting the game into Hiatus for no reason, given that they said they would just give the game back to Viv to continue the current dynasty if they won.

orkboi:

03-20-2017 16:19:20 UTC

Wordy, but not spam. I am becoming frustrated with hiatuses, delays, and incorrect rulesets delaying gameplay. against

derrick:

03-20-2017 16:36:09 UTC

Cuddlebeam did promise to put himself idle after that play.