BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Wait no!  I’ll play properly now, I promise!

I’d prefer something like a dynastic rule at this point, and if it goes on a ban.
Call me idiot, but I’d give him a fourth possibility.

This won’t stop him from posting.  Unless he joins as an active player, the posts won’t have any effect on gamestate.  I would say, though, if he continues to spam like this that more permanent action should be taken.

  I agree with Purplebeard.

I think we should create a core rule for this type of situation.

Agreed. Even though I am a beginner, I take time to read the rules and understand the game properly, instead of mindlessly intruding on serious gameplay for fun.

I’m not annoyed enough to justify this.  I seriously considered a proposal to ban him from posting (using whatever mechanics needed, e.g., deleting the account if necessary) until the dynasty was over, but 3 stupid posts aren’t really enough to justify even *that* punishment, never mind this one.

Don’t feed the trolls too much, we should just treat silly non-gamestate posts like any other intentional blog spam, and quietly delete them on sight.

I suppose it’s probably better to vote on a ban now, though, than to have to do this again next week when Udqbpn asks to be unidled so that he can make gamestate posts. (Admins could obviously just agree to ignore any unidle requests, but a quick vote seems fairer.)

[aguydude] Click “view all posts by this member” on his profile for some history; this is the third time he’s posted a bunch of incoherent and illegal spam proposals and then apologised. Whatever his reason for being here, he does not appear to be playing BlogNomic.

CoV break the rules, feel the pain.

WIthout new food for the troll.

BTW Doctor, DEF votes only count as votes of abstention on CfJs.  They don’t actually count as the same as mine like they do on proposals.  Just wanted to let you know in case that’s not what you meant to do.

I’m with everyone who’s annoyed on this. (And I think you’re lying udq when you say you’ll behave.) But I want to ban him the fair way. It might lead to some more spam, but I’d prefer to give the admins some more time to sharpen the ban hammer if it needs to come out. And I do agree with Yoda on the gamestate comment.

[Galtori] What do you mean by “I want to ban him the fair way”?

cov now that he made a request to be unidled

Kevan:
Ok, right now, he is still idle. I don’t believe it’s fair to ban someone who’s idle. And I think this is creating a precedent about “annoying players” (not entirely sure if stuff like this has happened before. I just tried to search the wiki for any players who were banned to see if a precedent does exist but I didn’t find anything besides Wak/Qwaz, and that really doesn’t apply.) I don’t want to see someone pulling more cfj’s for people who are only “annoying” since that is the reason most of us are citing.
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s a small doubt since he’s messed with gamestate before, and when he was cfj’d in the last dynasty, he never said that his account was compromised (which means he knew he was messing with stuff and still doing it). And now he’s come back, messed some more, and at the beginning of the cfj, said he’d “play properly” (which means he was doing that and not someone else, and that he still knows that what he was doing was wrong). But there’s still a little doubt.
If he can behave, then I have no problem with him. I don’t see a reason to ban him since he can’t mess with gamestate. But if he unidles and then messes with gamestate, then he’s already had his warning in the last dynasty and I believe he should be banned.
That’s my thoughts on a fair ban.

The CfJ uses the word “annoyed”, but I think it’s clear that we’re voting on whether a player should be banned for spamming the blog with no apparent intention of playing the game.

I agree with Galtori’s points.

Does PB’s vote count as an implicit for?  I thought I remember that on CfJ’s and DoV’s, there is no implicit for.  The reason I ask is because one more for vote and this can pass by quorum.

Quote from Rule 1.5 “If the Farmer who authored a Votable Matter has not cast a Vote on it, their Vote is counted as FOR.”

Quote from Appendix “Votable Matter
The word “Votable Matter”, means a Proposal, a CFJ or a DoV”

This is a Votable Matter, because it is a CfJ. Thus, as PB did not cast a Vote on it, his vote can be counted as FOR.

As an addendum, I just read this comment, which does not look a whole lot like someone “playing properly”. :-/

http://blognomic.com/archive/request3/

Oh well, disregard my last comment, sorry. I actually did not see that it was his _own_ request to be unidled and that he probably just wanted to get email notices on replies, which is totally legit. (I do it all the time.)