Okay, then…if you insist.

I shall cease the actions, with the exception of using it against the following things:

*Spam that has effects on the gamestate
*Spam that has effects on players directly
*Spam as a whole

But show me ONE example of a self-killed proposal getting into the dynastic history instead of its fixed version, still.

Just because your target is spam does not mean your actions are legal.

Yes, but would anyone seriously care (other than the spammer)?

not even him.

Plus, I can’t find a single spot where the self-killed first version of a proposal got into the dynastic history instead of a later version in the post-switch dynastic history…DUN DUN DUN DUN.

And, finally, don’t we have more important stuff to talk about, like how the Call for Judgment author option is GONE?

Hey, breaking rules is always important in Nomic.

What “spam” are you talking about? And since when did “I proclaim that I shall be breaking the rules only in these stated circumstances” fly in Nomic? If there’s a problem with spam, we should have a rule that defines it and deals with it.

Second Kevan’s point.

Rodlen if you ‘illegally edit’ a proposal again to get it failed then I’m going to make a proposal that removes your admin powers, and I don’t want to do that.

Spam such as the spam CfJs from earlier.  The ones with messages such as “ban all users”, “turn Blognomic into V14gr4nomic”, and such stuff as that.  Stuff that we have not been able to define officially, yet is obvious spam.

Would you mind not unilaterally locking comments on posts like this, Rodlen? (This post was altered to a comment-locked “enacted”, with the explanation of “Lets call this request enacted (spam is usually deleted moderately quickly)—Rodlen” - I’ve unlocked it.)

If someone’s spamming the blog with random posts, then sure, an admin can make a judgment call and delete those. (If it’s a bad call, we can argue it out, but no actual game rules will have been broken.)

But if someone’s spamming the gamestate with legally created official posts, then we should play the game and make sure that we only use legal means to remove those. That might be an abusable-trust “any admin can delete any post at any time, if their personal opinion is that it’s spam”, or we might try to actually address the causes (“if any user posts more than ten blog entries per day, or a blog entry of more than 1000 words, any admin may delete any of those posts” or something).

This is Nomic - there’s no real excuse for having an unwritten (and simply expressed) rule about one particular aspect of the gamestate.

So far, the spam has been made using the CfJ author, so that may be tough to make a rule against, so so far we have used the rather abusable “any admin may delete a post they think is spam at any time” without putting it in the ruleset.  That is a bit of a problem, especially with the fact that you can’t find out who deleted what thing.

We have tried to actually address the causes, but all of our attempts either have failed due to not defining what spam is, or have done too little. All we have protecting us from spam is this:

“Any CfJ that has no effect on the ruleset or gamestate may be automatically failed by any admin.”

So we have nothing protecting us from spam except for a group of admins who delete stuff rather illegally, and a small bit of the rules that allows CfJs with no effects to be automatically failed.

It seems pretty easy to make a rule against spamming from behind the CfJ Author mask; get rid of the CfJ Author.

I genuinely can’t remember why we created it in the first place - I can see there’s some argument for allowing players to call for justice without betraying their secret allegiances, but you can also get that by just asking the impartial Emperor to make a CfJ on your behalf. (If there’s a dynasty that happens to need a lot of secret CfJing, then it can allow it through a dynastic rule.)

But anyway - if players are currently living under the rule of “any admin may delete a post they think is spam at any time”, they should at least get a vote on it, and be able to suggest modifications and punishments for its misuse.

However, punishments for its misuse are impossible, as, as I stated before, you can’t find out who deleted something.

Well, unless its obvious, like if someone deletes this post.

Plus, look at Yoda’s victory in my first dynasty.  Lets see…if Yoda had asked me to post his CfJ for him, I would not have, as his trick would be pretty obvious.

Sometimes you need to post an anon CfJ without the help of the Emperor.  That…is why the anonymous CfJ author option still exists.

You could change the rule to “any admin may delete a post they think is spam at any time, after posting an entry summarising this action” - if a post disappears without any explanation, then it was an illegal deletion and we can try to deal with that. (And if we’ve got a rogue admin refusing to post this summary, then we have bigger problems anyway.)

Being able to win via a sneaky anonymous CfJ isn’t a fundamental human right. That’s like arguing for the removal of “it has more than 1 valid vote” from Rule 1.5, because the original wording was necessary for my victory back in Geran’s Dynasty. Nomic players win with whatever tools they have available to them at the time.

Kevan is smart.

“any admin may delete a post they think is spam at any time, after posting an entry summarising this action”

Lets see…deleted thing would be gone forever, anyone who broke this rule would not be punishable…problems, problems, problems.

As I say, if we had a rogue admin who was deleting posts irrespective of the ruleset, we’d have much bigger problems. If I deleted a post now, it’d be gone forever and I wouldn’t be punishable, so the above change wouldn’t make anything worse.

For now, and leaving the CfJ user aside, I think you should either propose a rule to the effect of “Rodlen may fail any proposals or CfJs that he considers to be spam” to see if the player community supports you, agree that you won’t be illegally failing any more posts, or consider standing down as an admin.

I’ll go with a modified first idea.