Saturday, May 09, 2009

Proposal: Title Misdeeds

Timed out after 48 hours (5-4) - Devenger

Adminned at 11 May 2009 02:46:20 UTC

To Rule 3.6 (Fair Play), add:-

* A Scripter should not make or edit a post such that its title does not broadly match its URL title.

Wakukee’s ub3r-l33t “changing the URL title field when posting” secret messages make Sparrow’s useful recent-changes Firefox plugin less clear, for the sake of showing off. I’ve mentioned this a couple of times now, to no effect, so I suppose it’s time to try a proposal.



05-09-2009 10:58:55 UTC

for it is pointlessly gimmicky


05-09-2009 11:06:14 UTC

imperial Meh.


05-09-2009 11:06:52 UTC

Well, I don’t like voting IMPERIAL on this sort of proposal, but Devenger’s opinion is probably as good as anyone’s…


05-09-2009 11:07:27 UTC

Oh, and is the proposal title a deliberate pun?


05-09-2009 12:59:09 UTC


It’s not showing off, its just somthing that I like to do. You like to include links in your posts, I like little jokes in my urls. Is it really that inconvinient for you?? If it really bothers you that much, I’ll ease up on it. However, it is no somthing that falls under the catagory of a bannable offence. We cannot make ban rules so lightly.


05-09-2009 13:08:30 UTC

I’m gonna agree with Wak here.  Even though it may be a *slight* irritation to those using the plugin, it is not in any way game breaking like changing the date or deleting a post entirely.

Besides, Wak was probably just having a little fun, and having fun is ultimately what Blognomic is all about, right?


05-09-2009 13:22:38 UTC

Yeah, this is one that doesn’t really do anything. The firefox thing is a luxury for you, not something that has any real-game value. Changing the title URL doesn’t hurt anything.



05-09-2009 13:30:38 UTC

At any rate, I’ve “fixed” it up for you.

On a side note, Hi Yoda! Nice to see you!


05-09-2009 14:33:29 UTC

against .  Simply because I enjoy occasionally using the URL as a snarky alternate title.


05-09-2009 21:26:38 UTC

against CoV

also, tux SHOULD be idle guys…


05-09-2009 21:54:46 UTC

Good to see you awake, Yoda. The fair play rules aren’t “don’t do this because it’s game-breaking”, they’re “don’t do this because it can be unhelpfully confusing (but if you actually try to scam a win with it, we’ll ban you)”.

Given his track record, I don’t think it’s too uncharitable to assume that one of Wakukee’s motives here is the hope that a novice player will say “wow, how do you do those secret messages?”, so that he can arch his fingers in response, and allude to maybe having some sort of… glitch admin powers.

It’s not a big deal, it’s just a bit annoying. If nobody else minds, that’s fair enough, I just thought I’d take a straw poll.


05-09-2009 22:10:34 UTC



05-09-2009 22:45:38 UTC

What are you talking about Kevan??? No, I think that these “secret messages” are all in good fun, and that glitch junk started with DC and has ended… long long ago. Bringing up an old issue is bad taste on your part. And seriously, the url is about as obvious as getting itaclis (ooh!) or links in comments. I mean, really Kev? I thought we were over this. Also, why the hell would I want to do somthing like that??? I am quite disgusted by these allegations.


05-09-2009 22:52:30 UTC

I agree with you, Kevan, about the purpose of the rules. I just don’t find this one to be particularly annoying. I won’t be upset if it passes, I just think it’s sort of frivolous compared with the other Fair Play rules.

And calm down, Wak.


05-09-2009 23:05:45 UTC

Wak, not to sound disrespectful but your past doesn’t give you alot of wiggle room. Sure you may have stopped but whats to say somewhere down the line you or someone else wouldn’t do it?

Plus, throwing a tantrum doesn’t help ya win people over.


05-09-2009 23:16:07 UTC

Sure, I appreciate you’ve changed a lot since your first month here, but it’s hard not to see slight tweaks of the blog interface to be in the same sort of “heh, look what I can do” spirit.


05-10-2009 01:52:22 UTC

Kevan, Darknight: Do the same complaints you keep levelling at Wakukee also apply to me, given that I have used the same feature in the past?


05-10-2009 02:10:41 UTC

The main reason Wak’s getting the 3rd dergree, to use american logic *eye roll at that* is that during his first month he tried finding every kind of loop hole he could find, even messing with the inner workings with the site. Ik he hasn’t done it in a good while but hes more on thin ice then u buck.


05-10-2009 02:51:41 UTC

A long while means 3 months, dk… 3 times as long as that 1st month… idk. I was hoping to be forgiven by now, maybe even get admin powers by my 6 month mark. Guess not. Oh well. What can I do? At any rate, I think that what we should all take away from this is that tuxhedoh still needs to be idled. Just my thought.


05-10-2009 02:52:25 UTC

Also, is there a way to get that comment tracker to work on non-firefox? Looks interesting.


05-10-2009 10:18:40 UTC

You can’t expect admin powers. And frankly, I don’t see why you’d want admin powers so quickly, making me doubt your intentions.

I actually did become an admin very soon after joining, because of a proposal that made all active players admins. I dispute whether that proposal was a good idea… nonetheless, it didn’t affect me for a good while, because I had no use for the power at all. The first time I significantly applied admin powers was during the last dynasty, where there was just no-one else available (and quite a few people here can attest to some horrific, even gamestate-breaking mistakes I made).

Right now, there’s a fine admin saturation level. As in, I haven’t seen many proposals hitting 60 hours unresolved. So, I’m still against this.

In answer to what you can do? Wait. Eventually, more admins will be needed. Then all will judge how your track record is (or everyone will be crazy enough to throw around admin powers).

Now, I’m off to learn how to idle players. I was reluctant to do so before the Bribery Stage, because being idled is something you can no longer come back from in this Dynasty. But maybe his inactivity was obvious, I don’t know.


05-10-2009 10:30:06 UTC



05-10-2009 10:36:26 UTC

Oh, you’re forgiven; it’s just hard to take doe-eyed “but this is just the same as using italics, I do not see how it would confuse anyone” from a player who so obviously revelled in talking up his “glitch admin powers” when he was leaving bold tags open. That’s how first impressions work.

But I’m not saying that we should stop using fake URLs because of any “glitch admin” motives; I’m saying we should stop using them because I personally find them a bit annoying, from anyone, and maybe a quorum of players silently agree. Making it a “fair play” rule is the most appropriate way to say “hey guys, we shouldn’t use this feature, even though it’s enabled”, in the current ruleset.

(It might be possible to work the Firefox plugin source directly into the blog; I’ll take a look some time.)


05-10-2009 18:16:45 UTC

Okay, I’m sorry that I have been an annoyance to you in the past. This is now. I’m not going to mess with ee, and I appologize for changing the url’s. I did not mean any harm by it and I am sorry that it has caused a problem. But now I want to make this very this clear: I do not, and have not for quite a period of time, want to claim any form of glitch related to my account. To be clear.

In an unrelated note, I can just download firefox itself (I don’t mind doing so), so don’t spend too much time on adding the script into blognomic, Kev.


05-10-2009 22:13:08 UTC

I maintain that the URL-changing feature is useful and should be preserved, as long as we use it reasonably.  Here are a couple of examples where I used it in an appropriate manner to convey additional information about the proposal:


05-10-2009 22:28:59 UTC

Convey additional information to who - the few people who noticed you doing it? I can see the appeal in communicating with an unspoken, unknown group of URL-noticers, but wouldn’t a plain sentence in the proposal itself do a better job, there, really?

I thoroughly recommend Firefox to anyone who isn’t already using it.


05-10-2009 22:43:55 UTC

Kevan, a plain sentence in the proposal would lose the sense of ‘this is what the title really should be’.

There’s another reason to block this proposal as well - it would prove an unnecessary and arcane headache when editing the titles of posts, even unofficial ones, since the URL is not also automatically changed.


05-10-2009 22:44:45 UTC

@ Kevan: I recently changed to Chrome, and I’m finding it a little more elegant than FF, though I do miss the plugins. We’ll see…


05-10-2009 23:22:08 UTC

against I don’t think people should be banned over this.


05-10-2009 23:34:08 UTC

Again, to clarify, the “fair play” rules are just BlogNomic’s way of saying “although Expression Engine allows you to do these things, they can be confusing or unhelpful, so please don’t”. A rule saying “these things are now magically impossible” wouldn’t work, so we say “if you do any of these things, you might get banned for it”.

The ban warning is only there for people who actually try to pull a scam using any of those features. And it’s only a warning, it still takes someone to post the ban proposal, and a quorum of players to agree that the player should be banned for what they did. Some of the existing guidelines (such as not deleting even a single word from a post) is pretty weak stuff, but would be unfair if used for a scam.


05-11-2009 01:51:29 UTC

To be honest, I think it would be interesting to see someone actually pull off a good scam using the URL.


05-11-2009 01:56:27 UTC

I don’t think that it can be done.

That is not a challenge, btw. Don’t try.