Requests: General [A]

[Aquinas]

We're talking about inactivation because of inactivity here, not inactivation as a sanction.

You are right, but this doesn't mean we will never get a player who feels a bit pissed because his account has been inactivated under the inactivity procedures. Believe me, this has happened in the past.

This may be particularly so where a player has been inactivated under the "party sitting" rule or the "3 day rule" where another player in the nation has specifically requested early inactivation.

Bear in mind also that Mods are only human...and whilst I'm not going to embarrass anyone by giving examples...I can tell you that (unsurprisingly, really) there have been those rare cases where after an inactivation request has been put in, the Mod has inactivated the account even though the account did not actually meet the rules criteria for inactivation. Hey, accidents can happen.

Given a situation can potentially emerge where someone is pissed about being inactivated under the inactivity rules, my argument is that when the pissed person goes to the thread to see what happened, it is better they just see the Mod saying "Done" than they see him saying something creative/flowery that might further inflame them.

Not that I don't generally enjoy Lewis's humour, BTW, he's lovely. Just don't want to see him get thumped for it, that's all, if you see what I mean!

[Occam]

You are right, but this doesn't mean we will never get a player who feels a bit pissed because his account has been inactivated under the inactivity procedures. Believe me, this has happened in the past.

I don't doubt it. Lewis should probably make sure to be exactly equally flippant in all cases so he can point out that everyone is treated the same.

[Wu Han]

Bear in mind also that Mods are only human...

It's an online game, he's an unpaid volunteer Mod not the Queen of England...

If it helps keep you motivated/sane, be as "unprofessional" as you want!

Three quotations which fully form my opinion on moderation. These people aren't paid, they aren't in it for personal gain, and they have to deal with an extraordinary amount of grief from the player community. They do an incredibly thankless job for the benefit of all of us, and I think they can take liberty with whichever sentence they choose to use, especially considering it hasn't offended the person it was about!

Yes, a degree of professionalism should be expected, but I think anyone with a brain who has lived at some point in the past 20 years can recognize Lewis's Pokémon joke as that; a joke.

[Auditorii]

Bear in mind also that Mods are only human...

It's an online game, he's an unpaid volunteer Mod not the Queen of England...

If it helps keep you motivated/sane, be as "unprofessional" as you want!

Three quotations which fully form my opinion on moderation. These people aren't paid, they aren't in it for personal gain, and they have to deal with an extraordinary amount of grief from the player community. They do an incredibly thankless job for the benefit of all of us, and I think they can take liberty with whichever sentence they choose to use, especially considering it hasn't offended the person it was about!

Yes, a degree of professionalism should be expected, but I think anyone with a brain who has lived at some point in the past 20 years can recognize Lewis's Pokémon joke as that; a joke.

I concur.

[Aquinas]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4447&p=138591#p138591

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.

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.

FYI under the previous edition of the Game Rules, this part read:

8. Inactivation.

Players will be inactivated in the following circumstances:

[...]

8.1.2 ALL of the following apply: they have not named their party (usually meaning one separate from their username), filled in their party description, voted on any bills or logged in within the last 48 hours.

[lewiselder1]

http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4447&p=138591#p138591

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.

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.

FYI under the previous edition of the Game Rules, this part read:

8. Inactivation.

Players will be inactivated in the following circumstances:

[...]

8.1.2 ALL of the following apply: they have not named their party (usually meaning one separate from their username), filled in their party description, voted on any bills or logged in within the last 48 hours.

Interesting. That suggests that perhaps it’s intended to be interpreted as; ‘One of the following must apply’ by ‘all’ because of the wording change, arguably. Or perhaps it’s just a wording change.

I’ll look into it with cm and Polites

[House Spencer]

Most of the time I was in Jelbania C7779 had no party descripton. Could I have had him deactivated for that?

I mean I wouldnt have Im not that much of a bastard, serously

But interesting to hypothesise

[Aquinas]

Interesting. That suggests that perhaps it’s intended to be interpreted as; ‘One of the following must apply’ by ‘all’ because of the wording change, arguably. Or perhaps it’s just a wording change.

I’ll look into it with cm and Polites

I believe you will find it is just a poor rewording of the previous rule. Otherwise, for example, accounts could be routinely inactivated after 48 hours of inactivity or where the party description field has not been filled in.

[FPC]

Interesting. That suggests that perhaps it’s intended to be interpreted as; ‘One of the following must apply’ by ‘all’ because of the wording change, arguably. Or perhaps it’s just a wording change.

I’ll look into it with cm and Polites

I believe you will find it is just a poor rewording of the previous rule. Otherwise, for example, accounts could be routinely inactivated after 48 hours of inactivity or where the party description field has not been filled in.

or maybe its not

[House Spencer]

Interesting. That suggests that perhaps it’s intended to be interpreted as; ‘One of the following must apply’ by ‘all’ because of the wording change, arguably. Or perhaps it’s just a wording change.

I’ll look into it with cm and Polites

I believe you will find it is just a poor rewording of the previous rule. Otherwise, for example, accounts could be routinely inactivated after 48 hours of inactivity or where the party description field has not been filled in.

or maybe its not

Explain.

Deactivating people for having no desc. is overthetop surely?