BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I’m thinking should the scope of [IDLE] be limited to affairs of idling; or should it allow more types of problems be raised

But I’m willing to agree on this platform rn

I’m against adding 150 words and a new section to the core ruleset for a mechanic that we’ll only need to use “once in a blue moon”, if that.

Last dynasty’s disagreement between admins over whether a player was idle was a very unusual situation, and wasn’t a dead end: the idled player has the option to ask somebody else (such as the disagreeing admin) to post a CfJ on their behalf.

A safety net is a good idea, but need only be one tiny line of something like “if a player believes that the rules prevent them from being unidled, they may make a CfJ as if they were unidle” buried in the appendix somewhere, we don’t need to give new players a big emergency exit speech in Core.

I think we can just make it so that both Idle and Unidle players can raise a CFJ. Much less wordcount.

I think the “only in emergencies” framing might be useful for discouraging idle veterans from wading in and fixing stuff that the current playerbase didn’t have a problem with, or that one of the current players may have been planning to fix tactically.

It does also need some kind of mechanic for allowing players to vote on these CfJs, in a situation where everyone is locked in the idle dungeon.

(This proposal works in that case because quorum is 1 if all players are idle, so explicitly counting an idle player’s vote for their own fix CfJ is enough, I think.)

I agree with Cuddlebeam. 

per CB

Making it so that idle and unidle players can raise a CfJ does not work

You would still need language that describes how voting while idle on a CfJ works. If you prevent the idle person from having a vote, you lose the fact that this both a) prevents this from being a backdoor to save the blog when all players are somehow idle and b) allows the person who thinks they shouldn’t be idle to properly have their voice heard

@Clucky That’s an easy fix though; just amend “Additionally, if the author of a Votable Matter has not used a valid voting icon in a comment to the post, then the author’s Vote is FOR” to include “including, on a CfJ, if the author is idle”

You don’t need idle voting in general, just idle author FOR

If you did that, and had 8 Generals 4 of which voted FOR an Idle CfJ and 4 of which votes against, there would be 5 FOR votes which equals or exceeds quorum, making it popular, but four generals not voting AGAINST it which is less than quorum, making it also unpopular.

“For CfJs where the proposer is idle, the calculation of quorum includes them as if they were an active player” should cover it.

feels like once you start to add stuff that clarified their vote is valid, and what happens if they change it (if someone posts a CfJ, votes against it, then goes Idle what is their vote on that CfJ?), add suggetions for how idle cfjs get used… you’re making as many changes at this proposal makes

could be reproposed tho. Too many possible edits from this.