Thursday, July 10, 2008

Proposal: Remove Clucky’s administrator access

vetoed—Yoda

Adminned at 11 Jul 2008 08:53:54 UTC

Clucky has taken recent actions that overstep the bounds of his administrator privileges, including closing pending proposals according to his own arbitrary idea of what is legal. These should have at a minimum gone through a CfJ. Only players that can be trusted to follow the rules and respect other members of the community should hold the caretaker keys. This echoes Kevan’s plea to be more careful with indiscriminate wizardship.

If this proposal passes, remove Clucky’s administrative access to BlogNomic.

Comments

jay:

07-10-2008 23:52:46 UTC

for Nothing personal - I just reckon if aggressive editing of posts is friendly and fair, so’s this.

Clucky:

07-11-2008 00:10:45 UTC

How is following the rules
“aggressive editing of post”? I was not following an arbitrary idea of what is legal, I was following the rules. The purpose of CfJ’s is to resolve disputes after they happen, not before.

Maybe you can interpret the rules one way, but I interpreted them a perfectly valid way. I cannot be expected to take into effect every possible interpretation of the rules before I make my actions. The way the game works is that I follow through on my interpretation of the rules, and if there is disagreement *then* the CfJ happens.

If Yoda has any respect at all for the game of Nomic he’ll veto this.

against

Bucky:

07-11-2008 00:16:55 UTC

against
Clucky should not be punished for attempting to follow the rules, even though said rules were under CfJ.  Losing one’s adminship is far too severe a penalty for being on the wrong side of a rules dispute.

Clucky:

07-11-2008 00:21:48 UTC

Not to mention the rules were not under a CfJ at the time. Yoda posted his CfJ after I iced his two proposals.

jay:

07-11-2008 00:27:27 UTC

Clucky disagreed with Yoda’s legal ability to post a proposal. The CfJ should have been issued at that point. Instead, Clucky took unilateral and unpopular action.

Are Clucky and Bucky the same person? Is that legal?

Amnistar:

07-11-2008 00:27:54 UTC

against

Agree with the above.  Clucky closed Illegal proposals.  That is within the bounds of the rights of Admins.

He has not acted unacordingly.

jay:

07-11-2008 00:28:47 UTC

And this isn’t a “penalty”, any more than being an administrator is a “reward”. This is about proper use of the privileges granted.

Clucky:

07-11-2008 00:30:06 UTC

Do you actually have the nerve to suggest two players who have been around here far longer than you of cheating?

A CfJ is not raised every time a rule is broken. When a rule is broken, it is fixed. If someone disagrees that they broke a rule, the CfJ comes out.

Amnistar:

07-11-2008 00:32:24 UTC

Indeed.  The rule was created.  Clucky interpretted it such that Yoda can’t make proposals.

AS SUCH Yoda’s proposals were invalid.

It is well within the rights of any Admin to close a pending proposal that is invalid, for whatever reason.

Yoda disagreed with Clucky’s interpretation of the rules, thus a CfJ was made.

jay:

07-11-2008 00:40:03 UTC

Yes, I have a lot of nerve, thanks.

You’ve been registered here longer than I, but I’ve played nomic longer.

And yes, I am suggesting foul play, because I see two very similarly named players unidling at the same time saying the same thing. If that’s incorrect, I apologize to you both individually.

And again, this is just playing.

jay:

07-11-2008 00:42:35 UTC

“Yoda disagreed with Clucky’s interpretation of the rules, thus a CfJ was made.”

I still insist it was Yoda who made the initial interpretation, by even posting (remember - he WROTE the rule being used against him here), so the disagreement was Clucky’s to CfJ, rather than assume that he, not Yoda (victor, author, super-adventurer), was working under the correct interpretation.

Amnistar:

07-11-2008 00:44:41 UTC

LOL Bucky and Clucky are 2 distinct users.  Trust me :p

You’ve seen two (three counting me) long-term players of Blognomic that were idle for awhile return at the start of a new dynasty (it happens fairly often) all of whom agree with the interpretation, and all of whom then voted FOR a proposal that restored the power that was taken away.

It’s not a matter of a personal grudge or anything.  Clucky found it humorous as well as legal to do what he did, then there was a proposal made to restore balance.

He didn’t do anything ‘unsprotsmanlike’ and definately didn’t overstep his powers as an admin.

jay:

07-11-2008 00:48:51 UTC

If Yoda pipes up and says, “Jay, I was an idiot and Clucky nailed me” I cheerfully withdraw this proposal.

And *ucky - sorry dudes.

Amnistar:

07-11-2008 00:49:14 UTC

“I still insist it was Yoda who made the initial interpretation, by even posting (remember - he WROTE the rule being used against him here), so the disagreement was Clucky’s to CfJ, rather than assume that he, not Yoda (victor, author, super-adventurer), was working under the correct interpretation. “


A CfJ comes up when there is a dispute about the rules, not when someone may, or may not, have misread them.  Yoda posted a proposal and then Clucky made the ruling (correctly according to the CfJ) that this action was illegal.  Yoda disagreed, at this point a CfJ was made.


Let us take another possible example of action that could provoke such a reaction.  Let us say that I, now, turn my race to Creeper.  Would a CfJ be neccessary to revert my race back to baby by another user?  No, I clearly violated the rules according to the way they are written.  If, however, I felt I had a valid reason I could either 1. Post my reason as I changed my race or 2. Posted a CfJ after someone challenged my action.

jay:

07-11-2008 00:50:46 UTC

I do think nuking two perfectly valid proposals for fun was a *little* unsportsmanlike. But fair.

Amnistar:

07-11-2008 01:00:08 UTC

Mean maybe, but it’s following the rules, to the letter :P

jay:

07-11-2008 01:05:44 UTC

So am I :)

Darknight:

07-11-2008 01:07:12 UTC

lol i sign off for the night and someone goes and opens a path to the relm of chaos. sheesh lol. oh and against

arthexis:

07-11-2008 02:11:37 UTC

against This is extreme. Either way, both this proposal and clucky’s behavior are in the end just a tactic to win the game by eliminating rivals :P

Yoda:

07-11-2008 03:34:26 UTC

veto For the record, I was going to veto this even before I read the comments.

Even if Clucky did overstep his powers as an admin (which I don’t believe he did, he was just playing the game), this is too much of a punishment.

He followed the correct procedure in interpreting the rule (in other words, he didn’t need a CfJ to make my proposals illegal).  My interpretation of correct procedure is that if something needs to be dealt with right away (such as making a proposal illegal), then you act first and ask questions (or post a CfJ) later.  If it is not something that needs to be dealt with right away but still needs urgent attention (such as solving an argument of clarifying ambiguity), you post a CfJ.

In this case, the proposal needed urgent attention, so Clucky took action.  I then saw that his action required urgent attention, so I posted a CfJ.