Talk:Decisions of the Judge

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 19:13, 21 December 2006 by Tucana25 (Talk | contribs)

I would like to request a Judgement regarding rule 317. I beleive that play is impossible from this point forward. Dayd has the most points and should be declared winner. The following rules per 356(as pointed out by Mike Rosoft in his vote) must be repealed. "Any current mutable rule that repealed another rule is hereby repealed." 308 311 317 326 334 336 349. These are all amendments that caused the repeal of another rule...thusly they must be repealed as well. These are fairly essential rules and the loss of them would, I believe, make the game unplayable. If so, congrats Dayd. --Tucana25 14:13, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I edited this page to remove a redirect to Talk:326. Applejuicefool 18:20, 29 November 2006 (EST)

I request a Judgment concerning proposal 337. It is not proposed in the proper way per 326, no date and time is given for the end of debate, but rather the phrase "later date and time." I do not feel that this meets the intent of the rule. --TomFoolery 20:01, 1 December 2006 (EST)

I request a Judgement to determine what timezone shall determine the 'first day of the month'. The election could be considered over if we go by official system time and not EST, as proposal 342 would state. I also posted this on the discussion page of actual December vote. --Tucana25 20:12, 1 December 2006 (EST)

I request a Judgement on Rule 302. Rule 302 states: "Players are limited to one Nomicapolis account in play". Can you define 'in play'. If a player can legally remove themselves from the census and then rejoin "as a brand new player", it would seem to suggest 'in play' could be understood 'in use'. If this is not the opinion of the judge, this rule would seem to contradict itself. --Tucana25 20:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)

I believe you have addressed this. If you also think so and if it is permissable within the rules, I'd like to withdraw my request... --Tucana25 21:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)
That's fine. I believe AJF009 covers your question, and I see nothing saying you can't withdraw a CFJ. Applejuicefool 23:01, 2 December 2006 (EST)


Quoteth the Judge: "I would suggest that Admin create some way for players to delete their player account."

I am afraid that the best that I can do is block access of player accounts. Would that be acceptable? --Admin 02:26, 3 December 2006 (EST)
Hmm...not sure. I guess that would work...if a player doesn't have access to an account, he can't really be penalized for "having" it, right? Go ahead and block access to all accounts that are not listed on the Census as either an active or inactive player. On second thought - if there are any accounts that have registered in the past two or three days, leave them alone. Those could be potential players just trying to get a grip on the rules before diving in. Also, if it's not too much trouble, send an email to the accounts that you block explaining the situation to them and tell them that they need to create a new account and add their name to the Census to play. Applejuicefool 09:19, 3 December 2006 (EST)
Alright, I will block access to all users who are not listed on the Census page as either active or inactive, excluding those that registered within the last week or so, I will not be able to send emails to them but I can put text on their user page to the effect described above. However, I would like to request that all Administrators retain unblocked status as they have responsibilities to the wiki itself. --Admin 16:05, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Request for clarification of AJF009: Research in to the history of Census and Listusers poses some questions that might be relevent to this judgment. The following users are not listed in the census currently:

The following users are listed in the census page but do not have user accounts:

painintheear
adoarns

The second list is pretty straight-forward. The players added themselves without first registering. A violation of rule 302. and therefore therefore the names should be excised.

The names within first list, per ruling, should be blocked but that would revoke the editing priviledges of both Admin as well as RobKohr. I would greatly prefer that RobKohr retain editing privileges as this user is the owner and is ultimately responsible for the content within this wiki.

User Admin exists to ensure that the wiki does what it is supposed to. Admin will not intentionally participate in the game except to provide evidence and ensure that any actions ordered or requested to be carried out. If maintaining of both user accounts Admin as well as Simulacrum is against the rules and an option is given to either resign from the game or maintaining an admin presence then I will, without hestitaion, confine my activities to the administration of the wiki. --Simulacrum 14:36, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Well, it wasn't really a "ruling"; more like a response to your question about my request. I would say leave Admin and RobKohr as they are. Block the other non-player accounts (There's really no way to actually unregister them?). Applejuicefool 15:18, 4 December 2006 (EST)
No, the wiki software that we use was originally written for Wikipedia and it is really provides no functionality that I know to delete users accounts. --Simulacrum 21:23, 4 December 2006 (EST)
User accounts, once created, cannot be removed. However, if you have made fewer than 200,000 edits, it may be possible for a bureaucrat to change your username, but you need to make such arrangements yourself. There is no guarantee provided by the Wikimedia Foundation in the privacy policy that a name will be changed on request. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish
Retrieved from "http://editthis.info/nomicapolis/Talk:Decisions_of_the_Judge"
Personal tools