Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Call for Judgment: (sigh)

Passes with Quorum of FOR votes (7-1)

Adminned at 15 Jun 2006 11:02:13 UTC

The Monk named James Mullard is holding up the game without reason, and has shown no intention of actually playing it.
Therefore, I propose e be immediately idled if e isn’t idle already, and that each Declaration of Victory and Call for Judgment e has posted, including any posted by ‘Call for Judgment’ from eir IP-address, be failed.

Comments

Thelonious:

14-06-2006 13:29:24 UTC

against for the moment for the following two reasons.

1. The only vandalism I’ve seen is the recent DoV.  Could you provide evidence for the other vandalism?

2. If e has been vandalising then e should be thrown out and blacklisted - not just idled.  (An idle monk can unidle emself so there’s not much point in just idling an offending party.)

Purplebeard:

14-06-2006 13:44:32 UTC

for E’s been randomly changing values in the GNDT as well as posting a useless DoV and CfJ. E’ll be idled in about an hour, but I thought I’d stop em from posting more CfJ’s and holding up the game even longer.

Bucky:

14-06-2006 14:02:36 UTC

against given that e can be idled anyway, and I don’t want this kind of precident on the books.

Purplebeard:

14-06-2006 14:42:16 UTC

against COV
The DoV isn’t legal anyway, as Bucky noted.

Hix:

14-06-2006 16:24:01 UTC

for This is exactly the kind of precedent I want on the books. 

Thelonious:  An idle Monk cannot unidle emself unless e is Admin Staff.

Purplebeard:  Still, this CfJ takes care of the case when e posts a legal DoV or CfJ before we can idle em.

Angry Grasshopper:

14-06-2006 16:32:37 UTC

for

I was talking for Kevan about this sort of thing just last week—it’s clear that we lack a mechanism for dealing with antisocial players.

Angry Grasshopper:

14-06-2006 16:33:04 UTC

Thelonious, if you’ve missed anything else, you haven’t been minding the GNDT.

Purplebeard:

14-06-2006 16:43:44 UTC

Hix: In hindsight, I doubt e had that knowledge. Anyway, e’s idled now.
for COV (for no reason, really)

Isolde:

15-06-2006 00:49:35 UTC

It’s already been dealt with, but even so: for

Helps clear the queue, at least.

Alcazar:

15-06-2006 02:34:22 UTC

for

Thelonious:

15-06-2006 07:36:58 UTC

Oh sorry, you’ve answered all my objections so I’ll do a CoV to for.

TAE:

15-06-2006 12:16:26 UTC

for
I do want te register a certain discomfort with the idea of using this mechanisim to get rid of peoplw we simply “don’t like”.  I would like to see a proposal for a rule that would create a procedure for dealing with “antisocial” players.