Party Inactivation Requests

In-Game and Forum requests and complaints.

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby House Spencer » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:58 pm

lewiselder1 wrote:
CiviixXXX wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty.php?partyid=34874


And just like that, they were gone.

House Spencer wrote:
lewiselder1 wrote:MODERATION uses INACTIVATE. It's super effective!


Ya don't I know it

You have to be so flippant? Inactivation can be not that nice a thing just sayin

Another Jelbanian gone


Just a bit of harmless fun. This was an inactivation based on inactivity under rule 5.c.i; a fairly common occurrence, not an unexpected one, and one in all likelihood applied to somebody who isn't playing the game currently, a purely practical concern not based on their behaviour and nothing personal... In other words, I think this was rather inoffensive. I'm hardly mocking them, I'm just spicing up a menial task with a more menial "Done" and replacing it with something a little less boring.

Tl;dr: I'm afraid I disagree.


Your boasting showing off how you are able to inactivate parties. Not cool dude.
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby lewiselder1 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:14 am

House Spencer wrote:Your boasting showing off how you are able to inactivate parties. Not cool dude.


Well I’m sorry that you saw it that way but I don’t see how that can be considered boasting at all (nor is it anything worth boasting about; it’s checking a date and clicking a button to do some simple admin work; hardly the most thrilling power to have, and hence why it’s worth spicing up). I’m not trying to argue with you or anything, and if others disapprove too, fair enough, but I honestly do not think that’s the message it sends. I’m just using jokes / melodramatic statements to make an otherwise boring message less boring, I’m not sure anyone can really be offended by a Pokémon joke as opposed to ‘Done.’ I’m not laughing at somebody for being inactivated, I’m just making an otherwise entirely dull message slightly less boring. I don’t really see the issue.

As I said, if others agree, I’ll stop, but I think you’re in the minority on this one. Regardless I’d like to keep this thread clear for practical purposes and don’t think debating this is helpful so I’d prefer to leave this here or at the very least move the discussion to private messages if you don’t mind. Thanks :)
aka Lewis

I used to be a moderator like you, until I took an arrow to the knee
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby thefalloutfan101 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:11 am

The three days have come. Thanks in advance. http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=35106
VKP- Dundorf (Inactive)
SocDem Workers Party (Valruzia) (Inactive)
All-Trigunian Communist Party (Inactive)
Freedom Party (自由黨) (Inactive)
United Democratic Party- Social Liberals (Active)


Continental Roleplay Coordinator (Seleya)
User avatar
thefalloutfan101
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:56 pm
Location: Johnston, D.D., State of New Egelion, Baltusia (IC) Florida, United States (OOC)

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby Nichola » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:03 am

POPULAR PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF PONTESI (Pontesi-inactive)
ZENTRISTICHE PARTEI DUNDORF (Dundorf-inactive)
FRONTE DEMOCRATICO - FP (Istalia - active)
Nichola
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:05 am

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby cm9777 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:54 am

Both Done. I don’t think Lewis has done anything wrong here I might add. If anyone has more to say on the manner please pm us or at the very least post in the Moderation/GRC queries page. This is really important as debates in this thread as well as others have caused mods to miss requests in the past.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby Doc » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:14 am

Primary: Gaduri Brethrenist Movement (MHdG), Gaduridos, since 4481

Inactive: Parti des Frères Lourenne, Since 4109
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), Old School Since 2591
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Primary: Gaduridos, PHdG; Inactive in Kalistan, Lourenne and Telamon

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby Polites » Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:46 am

Done
Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute vises,
Cum ridere voles, Epicuri de grege porcum
Polites
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby Zanz » Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:30 pm

http://classic.particracy.net/viewuser.php?userid=34983

>48 hours without login, did technically change name but have not voted on anything or changed party description. If we can't deactivate due to the name change that's fine I guess, but figured I'd ask to get some clarity.
Official Troll King since 8/14/2013.
User avatar
Zanz
 
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby lewiselder1 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:34 pm

Zanz wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewuser.php?userid=34983

>48 hours without login, did technically change name but have not voted on anything or changed party description. If we can't deactivate due to the name change that's fine I guess, but figured I'd ask to get some clarity.


In theory this depends on your interpretation of the rule.

Rules wrote:ii. They have not logged on for 2 days (48 hours) and have not filled out their party description, changed the name of their party or voted on more than one bill.


Does this mean that doing one of these three tasks is enough? Filling out their party description OR the others. Or does it mean that all three are necessary -- they have not filled out their party description, changed the name of their party, or voted on more than one bill; i.e., you must do all of the above. Is it a list of possible actions, or a list of necessary ones?

Interesting question indeed. Both are valid readings to my eyes, which either means we have to play it safe and go with the former so as not to inactivate somebody who doesn't deserve it, or allow this loophole of sorts to give us some leeway, until we can revise the rules regarding this.

You can also argue that since the rules are only the "primary mandate" for moderation, moderation is not always bound by them, and can step outside of them to do whatever is needed. However the only allowance in those rules for this sort of behaviour is for "exceptional circumstances", which this is not.

I think it is reasonable to inactivate them. But I'm going to play it safe.

Worth looking at for the next rules though!

tl;dr I personally would be happy to inactivate, but I'm going to air on the side of caution and suggest leaving it another day.
aka Lewis

I used to be a moderator like you, until I took an arrow to the knee
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: Party Inactivation Requests

Postby Zanz » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:14 pm

lewiselder1 wrote:
Zanz wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewuser.php?userid=34983

>48 hours without login, did technically change name but have not voted on anything or changed party description. If we can't deactivate due to the name change that's fine I guess, but figured I'd ask to get some clarity.


In theory this depends on your interpretation of the rule.

Rules wrote:ii. They have not logged on for 2 days (48 hours) and have not filled out their party description, changed the name of their party or voted on more than one bill.


Does this mean that doing one of these three tasks is enough? Filling out their party description OR the others. Or does it mean that all three are necessary -- they have not filled out their party description, changed the name of their party, or voted on more than one bill; i.e., you must do all of the above. Is it a list of possible actions, or a list of necessary ones?

Interesting question indeed. Both are valid readings to my eyes, which either means we have to play it safe and go with the former so as not to inactivate somebody who doesn't deserve it, or allow this loophole of sorts to give us some leeway, until we can revise the rules regarding this.

You can also argue that since the rules are only the "primary mandate" for moderation, moderation is not always bound by them, and can step outside of them to do whatever is needed. However the only allowance in those rules for this sort of behaviour is for "exceptional circumstances", which this is not.

I think it is reasonable to inactivate them. But I'm going to play it safe.

Worth looking at for the next rules though!

tl;dr I personally would be happy to inactivate, but I'm going to air on the side of caution and suggest leaving it another day.


Now over 72 hours, so requesting inactivation on those grounds.
Official Troll King since 8/14/2013.
User avatar
Zanz
 
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Game Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests