Monday, October 13, 2008

Proposal: Reducing the size of the devil’s playground


Adminned at 15 Oct 2008 09:39:15 UTC

In rule 1.2, change:

entry or comment


entry, comment, or GNDT comment

So active GNDT users aren’t idled.


Darknight: he/him

13-10-2008 21:43:46 UTC

for makes sense


13-10-2008 22:06:38 UTC

for thank you


13-10-2008 23:01:22 UTC

against , because it’s quite a bit harder to check for 6-day-old GNDT activity than for posts/comments of a similar age.


14-10-2008 14:33:42 UTC

against as with Bucky.  I know I won’t go deep into the GNDT archives to idle someone.


14-10-2008 20:21:41 UTC

laziness shouldn’t be the answer to a positive and active idea for the game

Kevan: he/him

14-10-2008 23:13:49 UTC

These guys are volunteers. If you make it harder to check for idle players, they’ll naturally check less often. This is bad for the game. If you chide them for “laziness” and demand that they check just as frequently, then they’ll just resign from being admin and maybe ask you to volunteer instead. This is also bad for the game.

(For anyone who doesn’t know, the current idle check is just a matter of working out the date seven days ago, and clicking quickly through people’s ExpressionEngine profiles in the “Active Players” list, to see their last comment/post time.)

This could be okay as a dynastic rule in a particularly GNDT-heavy, voting-light dynasty. But in the majority of games, if you’re active then every proposal is patiently waiting for quorum on your behalf, and it’s polite to at least vote.

arthexis: he/him

14-10-2008 23:59:59 UTC



15-10-2008 15:31:54 UTC

What Kevan said…


15-10-2008 16:38:12 UTC

against S-K. Thanks for pointing that out, Kevan.