Friday, September 30, 2011

Proposal: Stale Permissions

10-0 -coppro

Adminned at 30 Sep 2011 18:17:55 UTC

In the rule “Artists”, change the text

Admins may render an Artist Idle if that Artist has asked to become Idle

to

Admins may render an Artist Idle if that Artist has asked to become Idle in the last seven days

Credit to coppro for spotting this

Comments

bateleur:

09-30-2011 15:47:04 UTC

for

Kevan:

09-30-2011 15:54:19 UTC

for Ha.

Josh:

09-30-2011 15:56:13 UTC

for I really admire coppro for not having taken advantage of that. I don’t think I would have been able to resist.

ais523:

09-30-2011 15:59:10 UTC

for He told me about it ages ago, and I’ve been resisting ever since. (Not being an admin made it easier.)

Wooble:

09-30-2011 16:07:19 UTC

for

scshunt:

09-30-2011 16:42:15 UTC

Honestly, there was never a great opportunity since I noticed. There are other core rules scams, though >:D

scshunt:

09-30-2011 16:42:32 UTC

oh, right,  for

Klisz:

09-30-2011 17:13:46 UTC

for

Prince Anduril:

09-30-2011 17:18:22 UTC

for

I was going through DoV rules recently, though they seem pretty watertight.

Kevan:

09-30-2011 17:53:25 UTC

Maybe we should have a “core rule paragraph of the week” that everyone pores over for scams.

Part of me still wants to try outlawing core ruleset scams (even if only in a fair-play “we won’t support your DoV if it’s based on a core loophole you spotted in 2006 and kept quiet about” way) - winning a dynasty by scamming its dynastic rules is fine and very much the point, but winning by exploiting an ancient core loophole you kept up your sleeve for five years feels unsporting.

Blacky:

09-30-2011 18:15:32 UTC

for

scshunt:

10-01-2011 00:25:18 UTC

Kevan: I just noticed it after bateleur won. Should I have stolen his victory? Should I end this nascent dynasty by exploiting it for a win? Or should I hold on to it for when I can exploit it in a way that isn’t too disruptive of the dynasty?