Direct from the source:
- After 3 months of inactivity from the developer's public creator/crowdfunding accounts (Patreon, SS, etc), we will resolve special circumstances or scenarios on a case-by-case basis (no creator accounts, creators developing for free, Patreon accounts under review/ban).
"We will resolve special circumstances or scenarios on a case-by-case basis"
These conditions are not noted as being dependent upon one another, i.e. not all of them must be fulfilled for the "Abandoned" tag to apply. The fulfillment of one condition is sufficient to apply the tag.
I didn't say they were dependant on each other. In fact, I've been very specific in the words I've used on this matter already, so again, go back and re-read what I wrote.
but by the letter of the law it should still receive the "Abandoned" tag on the date that I noted.
By the "letter of the law" is a terrible stance to take, largely because when rules have multiple conditions, they can be used to oppose each other based solely upon inevitable interpretation of how and when they can conflict with eachother. As it stands, the condition that mentions 18 months is written as "> 18 months".
The use of ">" alone is not specific because it's open to interpretation - At months or over 18 months?
Both can be argued, which is another example of the rules being left ambiguous in parts meaning that it not only requires direct action from staff but makes "the letter of the law" utterly stupid because of how the rule is written.
In this case they already make provision for special circumstances under one condition, which leads to direct intervention from staff and deciding on either strict adherence to the written rule or applying an exception based upon the state of meeting other conditions.
In the event of staff looking into it directly, they'll be applying their interpretation which may or may not be strict adherence as that condition is written due to the status of other conditions.
Summertime Saga would certainly be an unusual case given DC's monthly progress reports and regular Picarto streams, but by the letter of the law it should still receive the "Abandoned" tag on the date that I noted.
There is also the consideration that it was already made public knowledge that this tech-update would take far longer to do because patrons voted for one big tech update instead of several smaller ones.
On a sidenote, this debate is infinitely better than rereading the same old, tired whineyness/bitchiness directed at a developer.
the dooblie-do that goes on in this doo-doo.
Should have stuck a "
he'll do that voodoo that he do so well" in there... Alas, missed opportunity.