Monday, August 02, 2021

Proposal: The Devil’s Hands [Core]

Cannot be enacted, 1 vote to 6. Josh

Adminned at 02 Aug 2021 21:18:33 UTC

Add a subrule to “Calls for Judgement” titled “Idle CFJs” with the following text

An Idle Call For Judgement is any Call For Judgement that includes the tag “[IDLE]”, and can be made by any General, including one who is Idle. Generals (and Idle Generals) are strongly encouraged to only use Idle Calls For Judgement when dealing with issues or disputes that arise from their status as Idle or not, or their perceived inability to unidle.

The author of an Idle CFJ is always considered to not be idle for both the purposes of “Voteable Matters” and the calculation of quorum specifically as they each relate to the idle CFJ in question but if they are otherwise idle then they are still considered to be idle for all other purposes. (Note that this means quorum might be different for an Idle CFJ, so Admins should pay special attention when resolving Idle CFJs to ensure they are using the proper value for quorum)

We had some issues last dynasty where if a player was idle but felt that they shouldn’t be idle, they had no legal recourse but to still wait for someone to unidle them. This also serves as a nice little safety net incase we accidentally break the game by somehow making it illegal for players to unidle themselves.

Seems reasonable to me in this situation to still allow them to try and make a CfJ to fix the issue. But want to try and narrow the scope of these CFJs as much as possible. Hopefully this is something we only have use once in a blue moon.


Chiiika: she/her

02-08-2021 06:53:01 UTC

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

Kevan: City he/him

02-08-2021 07:49:38 UTC

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.


02-08-2021 09:14:05 UTC

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

Kevan: City he/him

02-08-2021 09:17:10 UTC

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.

Kevan: City he/him

02-08-2021 09:23:22 UTC

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.)

Josh: he/they

02-08-2021 10:19:00 UTC

I agree with Cuddlebeam.  against

Kevan: City he/him

02-08-2021 10:37:45 UTC


Darknight: he/him

02-08-2021 12:15:46 UTC



02-08-2021 13:35:20 UTC

against per CB

Clucky: he/him

02-08-2021 13:55:31 UTC

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

Janet: she/her

02-08-2021 15:00:01 UTC


Josh: he/they

02-08-2021 15:49:41 UTC

@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

Clucky: he/him

02-08-2021 18:07:41 UTC

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.

Josh: he/they

02-08-2021 18:36:22 UTC

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

Clucky: he/him

02-08-2021 19:35:59 UTC

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

Chiiika: she/her

02-08-2021 21:08:00 UTC

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