Talk:350

From Nomicapolis

Current revision as of 23:55, 12 December 2006

I declare this proposal failed. --Dayd 18:55, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Proposer's summary and declarations

Debate for this Proposal shall end December 9, 2006 at 00:01 EST.

This will remove players who seem to have permanently left the game. They will no longer influence actual game-play elements (population, quorum, etc.) --Tucana25 23:15, 5 December 2006 (EST)

This proposal has been reworded to address concerns laid forth in the debate section.

Debate for this proposal shall be extended until December 10, 2006 at 00:01 EST. --Tucana25 20:53, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Debate

Add comments As defined by 330, the number of players and their active/inactive status only affected the population at the time of the passage of 330. By current rules, the number of active or inactive players no longer affects the population. Applejuicefool 10:15, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I had misremembered the contents of 330 when proposing this. Since that proposal allows for tweaking of population, does anyone want to see something like that occur? --Tucana25 12:13, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I think this rule is too harsh to players who have abandoned the game; what is the point in demanding that the player must register a new account to continue in the game? Why not simply state: "A player who has been inactive for six consecutive months shall be presumed to have left the game (see rule 302) and shall be listed on the census page as "departed". If a departed player wishes to rejoin, they may do so by removing the "departed" status from their username, but they will start as a brand new player. ..." And then the rest of your proposal (probably minus the last sentence) would follow. It might need some more tweaking, but I'll leave it on others to comment. - Mike Rosoft 16:24, 7 December 2006 (EST)

The idea is that if you have abandoned the game, you probably aren't coming back. We are already penalizing for "going inactive". The reason I worded the proposal in this way is because we can't actually remove players from the census(for recordkeeping purposes, I don't think we want to). The options (as I see them) for reinstatement could be 1) removal of deceased title; 2) create new user; 3)utilization of same account name with all points and titles, etc removed. Of those three, I don't think #1 punishes the user. #3 would seem legally to be the most complex. The reinstatement part of the equation is not really a huge deal since I think the likelihood of it happening is minimal, so if there is an outpouring of support to change that part, I would be happy to. --Tucana25 20:35, 7 December 2006 (EST)

How about we call them "moved out of nomicapolis" and they are removed from the census. A player may "move back into nomicapolis" by putting their name back on the census. This lets you keep the same user name. Also resets their points to 0 as a restart. I think this does the same thing. I mean in reality if people don't see you in a city any more it doesn't mean your dead. --Dayd 21:52, 7 December 2006 (EST)

I can change the name from deceased if that is really a big issue. I would like to not introduce legislature that allows for people to be REMOVED from the census. I would rather allow some other status (whether it be deceased, moved away, departed, on the john, BRB, etc.) before removing people from the census, even if their name remains in the system. --Tucana25 23:43, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Rule 302 already permits users who have voluntarily left the game to rejoin, utilizing the same account but being treated as new players for every purpose. I have quoted it in my proposition. I might add to it: "A departed player shall not be considered in play for any purpose, with the exception of rule 302". (This will prevent a player from registering a new account while leaving the old one on the census page, to avoid confusion.) Is there anything else that might cause a problem? - Mike Rosoft 07:41, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Vote

Voting is now over. Please Vote. --Tucana25 08:09, 11 December 2006 (EST)

For

Add FOR vote

1. --Tucana25 08:09, 11 December 2006 (EST)
2. chuck 13:41, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. --Dayd 09:29, 11 December 2006 (EST)
2. --TomFoolery 11:17, 11 December 2006 (EST)

Abstain

Add Abstention