Talk:319
From Nomicapolis
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
After having defined inactivity I hereby set fourth three sanctions against those who are inactive. I'm very open to suggestions on this one.
--Shivan 16:48, 16 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
- Of course, the points thing won't operate until 305 goes away. Applejuicefool 17:03, 16 November 2006 (EST)
- I wouldn't mind seeing people go into the red for inactivity. Also it might be nice to say that Inactive Player do not count toward the total count on the census. Or we could just remove Players from the Census to an inactive list and just circumvent the rules. Your rule and your choice. Just thought of another potential problem. According to 314 you status changes from inactive to active the moment you cast a vote. So then wouldn't your vote now be worth 1 instead of the 1/2 of an inactive player since your active now. --Dayd 11:16, 17 November 2006 (EST)
With the number of rules we are making right now, isn't there 25 rules very soon? Why difference would it make whether they count towards the total on the census?--Shivan 00:38, 17 November 2006 (EST)
- We are at 21 with 3 under debate as of 03:49, 17 November 2006 (EST) -- Simulacrum
As stated above we are close to the 25 but not quite there yet. I am concerned that if this rule is enacted, it might discourage our inactive players from further participation, so I would be in favor of keeping the cap at some sort of minimum either 0 or -1000 or something else. It does add a bit of initiative to those of us that are active to remain so. Also about the suggestion on moving or removing the inactives on the census page, the current rules specifies how one player can add themself to or remove themself from the census (302). It does not regulate how other players update the census page (i.e. labeling inactives) and since rule 116 permits changes that is not regulated or prohibited, this proposal could additionly tie up a loose end by putting teeth on 314 as well as making the census page a more organized page by refactoring the inactives to the bottom of the list or splitting the list to an active list and an inactive one. Your call, proposer. --Simulacrum 03:49, 17 November 2006 (EST)
"so I would be in favor of keeping the cap at some sort of minimum either 0 or -1000 or something else." I dont really understand what you mean Simulacrum? It say's in the law that going inactive can not cause your points to go below 0. Aditionally it only happens once, even if you stay inactive for 3 years you still only lose 10 points.--Shivan 09:52, 17 November 2006 (EST)
- Opps, jumped ahead of the actual wording of the proposal, sorry. --Simulacrum 01:25, 18 November 2006 (EST)
I think it is a good idea do that thing with the census. It would make it a lot more readable. The thing i'm not sure of is: How does it? Often ofen does it need to be done? (updated every week perhabs?) Does it even need to regulated? Additionally I thought of the situation when a player returns from inactivity, perhabs 314 should be ammened so that the becoming active player has to move his name to the active list and delete the (inactive) tag.--Shivan 10:00, 17 November 2006 (EST)
- Maybe add: "4. When a player is declared inactive the census page shall be edited and refactored to account for the change in status." The census page would not offically change immediately since we need a player to go inactive to have this rule force a change on the census page. Note that I would personally perfer that all players listed on the census remain there but just in a seperate list maybe. Of course, the wiki has a complete list of users anyways (Special:Listusers). So delisting inactive players is an option if you wish to place the wording.
- If you don't want to make any changes then I will support the proposal as is. --Simulacrum 01:25, 18 November 2006 (EST)
Quick questions: What does the word "refactored" mean in this context? Are we just talking about adding the word "(inactive)" to the inactive players' names? Or are we talking about removing those names from the list? Do we need a provision for "editing and refactoring" when inactive players rejoin the game? Applejuicefool 09:37, 21 November 2006 (EST)
Just a thought: How about, instead of just 10 points, a player loses 10 points per week of inactivity? That way, if a player loses track of time and slips into inactivity for a day, he has no penalty, but if a player goes away for a month, he loses 40 points, and if he stays away, he eventually winds down to 0. Applejuicefool 10:07, 19 November 2006 (EST)
What if someone goes on vaccation? I mean I don't know if I want to lose 10-20 points if I take a week or two off. --Dayd 19:47, 19 November 2006 (EST)
Applejuicefool: Basicly I think it is a good idea but it also requires more work to keep track of everything then. But it would be logical to lose more points the longer you are gone. Don't quite know what to do about it.
Dayd: Of course a player should be able to go on vacation, or out on a drinking binge. But I also think that it should be implemented in a different rule. Otherwise this rule will contain too many different things. Make a new rule that defines "vacation mode", if you are in vacation mode then you are not inactive, and thus dont lose points.--Shivan 06:53, 20 November 2006 (EST)
Good idea simulacrum, It really would make the page more readable. It we should change "Player in game" to "Active players in the game"--Shivan 06:58, 20 November 2006 (EST)
Ok guys. If anyone has anything to add then say it now. I would like this rule to reflect the be a broad settlement. Otherwise I will cast my vote in about 12-24 hours from now.--Shivan 14:14, 22 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
- --Shivan 09:44, 23 November 2006 (EST)
- --Tom Foolery 12:29, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Against
