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.
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
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.
>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.
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.
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.