makes sense

thank you

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

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

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

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.

What Kevan said…

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