Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Proposal: Not a banning offense

Reaches Quorum at 8-0 and is Enacted. - lilomar

Adminned at 13 Jul 2010 05:22:55 UTC

Remove the following sentences from the Rule entitled “Fair Play”:

Instead of deleting content from a blog post which has at least one comment, the content should either be struck through with <strike> tags, or replaced with a link to a copy of the same content on the wiki.

and

A @ should not make or edit a post such that its title does not broadly match its URL title.

Comments

glopso:

13-07-2010 03:20:03 UTC

for  I say yes!

scshunt:

13-07-2010 04:15:03 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

13-07-2010 04:18:06 UTC

I don’t remember what the issue was that required the first of those. Probably just looked unseemly.

I DO remember the cause of the second, but it was a minor annoyance more than anything. I’ll let these go if you think we should, Bucky.

imperial

Darknight: he/him

13-07-2010 04:19:33 UTC

for

lilomar:

13-07-2010 04:23:00 UTC

imperial

Bucky:

13-07-2010 04:24:00 UTC

The problem I have with the second is that it doesn’t let us rename posts.  (url is permanent; title is not)

lilomar:

13-07-2010 04:26:52 UTC

Note: glopso’s current vote is invalid, since e made it before becoming an @.

glopso:

13-07-2010 05:49:18 UTC

I am an @ now, so my vote is a for

Kevan: he/him

13-07-2010 08:30:55 UTC

The first of these is maybe more of a useful admin guideline that a rule. As I remember, it came in due to inconsistency when dealing with broken or unnecessarily large posts - some admins would just delete the post, others would would blank the post body and replace it with “[spam deleted]”, and some would move the content off to a linked wiki page. (The third is probably clearest, for giving other players a clear record of what happened and whether it was appropriate to delete it.)

It might be worth keeping around to enforce gentlemanly conduct, though. Without this rule, it’d be legal to make non-official posts of “I hereby offer to sell my parrot to any player for 5 gold pieces”, and - when someone’s replied agreeing to this, but without mentioning the price - editing your post to read “7 gold pieces”.

What’s the argument for renaming posts? The trivial argument for not renaming them is that anyone using Alethioscript won’t be able to match the rollover URLs to proposals they remember reading - the rule came in when Wakukee was consistently using his proposal URLs to make little Easter egg comments.

Josh: Observer he/they

13-07-2010 09:56:28 UTC

for I support any move to detooth Fair Play, at least until the phrase “banning offence” is removed from it.

Qwazukee:

13-07-2010 10:00:24 UTC

pie-are-squared?

ais523:

13-07-2010 10:58:04 UTC

The direct trigger of the first was when tusho posted an incredibly long blog post; its content was moved to the wiki by an admin after the vote had already been commented on, to stop it breaking the front page. So it seems more focused on admin edits than author edits.

Purplebeard:

13-07-2010 11:52:58 UTC

for

ais523:

13-07-2010 12:27:32 UTC

for The real problem with the Fair Play rule is that we have no mechanism, short of a ban, for punishing rulebreaking.