Saturday, July 31, 2021

Call for Judgment: Window of Opportunity

Quorum Reached. Passes 6-0—Clucky

Adminned at 31 Jul 2021 14:54:10 UTC

Uphold that the following vampire lords were unidle at the time it was posted and all other vampire lords were idle: ais523, Brendan, Chiiika, Clucky, Josh, Jumble, Kevan, lemonfanta, Raven1207.

Unidle any Vampire Lord who has made a post or comment requesting to be unidled after this CfJ was created. Idle any vampire lord who has made a post or comment requesting to be Idled after this CfJ was created.

In “Idle Vampire Lords” replace “the past four days” with “the past 96 hours (4 Days)” wherever it appears, replace “last seven days” with “past 168 Hours (7 days)” and “previous four days” with “past 96 hours (4 days)”

So the idle rule is currently busted. A day is defined to be “unless otherwise stated, refer to a day beginning at and including 00:00:00 UTC, ending when the next day begins”

This makes time periods like “within the previous four days” a bit clunky. It meant that ais’s request to unidle remained invalid until it became the 31st and thus the “previous 4 days” were suddenly the 30th, 29th, 28th and 27th whereas when he made the request it was the 29th, 28th, 27th, and 26th (which includes the day he tried to request to be idled)

It also arguably means that requests to unidle don’t instantly go through, but that is less clear if “past 4 days” means the 31st, 30th, 29th and 28th or 30th, 29th, 28th and 27th.

Regardless seems good to just rubber stamp the list, fix it to be worded in a way that everyone actually interpreted the rule, and move on.


Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 01:22:06 UTC

(we should also probably fix both the ‘bury comments in old posts for tactical purposes’ scam and also probably make it so that the idle timeout starts when you go idle so people don’t need to track down when the request was made. but those aren’t as pressing as realizing that tons of players may have been illegally idled/some of us may have been illegally unidled)

Raven1207: he/they

31-07-2021 04:02:02 UTC

Exactly what is this for?


31-07-2021 05:00:27 UTC

The rule says “References to a “day” as an entity rather than as a duration (e.g. “Sunday”, “The day after performing this action”, or “August 2nd”), unless otherwise stated, refer to a day beginning at and including 00:00:00 UTC, ending when the next day begins.”

Therefore, it doesn’t apply to references to a “day” as a duration, like it’s used here. I agree that your wording would lead to breakage (among other things, it would require waiting until midnight before unidling anyone, ever, throughout BlogNomic history, which means that a huge number of proposals/CFJs that should have passed didn’t, and thus that the core rules probably look different from how we think they do, and thus that this CFJ probably wouldn’t fix thee issue if it actually existed).

I’m planning to vote FOR regardless, on the basis that it’s correct to vote FOR on CFJs that don’t do anything in order to give other people more certainty about the gamestate. But this doesn’t do anything.

(If people are concerned that this bug might exist, the correct fix is to place only FOR votes on the CFJ, and let it time out before enacting it, to be certain that it is indeed legally enactable at the time we enact it.)


31-07-2021 05:02:29 UTC

I also note that Clucky naturally assumed the duration interpretation in the edit comment of his wiki edit at 22:28, 30 July 2021. So I don’t think Clucky actually believes there’s an issue here either (or if he does, he misread the rule in question and the misreading caused him to change his mind).


31-07-2021 05:18:19 UTC

Ah, this is out of edit window now.


Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 05:22:25 UTC

@raven read the flavor text that explains exactly what happened.

Raven1207: he/they

31-07-2021 05:47:06 UTC

ok for

Josh: he/they

31-07-2021 07:58:24 UTC


Kevan: City he/him

31-07-2021 13:20:38 UTC


Brendan: he/him

31-07-2021 13:25:20 UTC