Jamie Dallaire on Thu, 6 Nov 2008 14:52:52 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] PD Reform

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Charles Schaefer <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I submit the following Brick Red proposal, titled "PD Reform"

I Color that Proposal Black.

And here's why I'm against it in its current form:

- as far as I can tell, it does not make the process of approval (aside from
by also calling it ratification) any faster than it currently is. Still 2
- as it now stands, approval requires no objection, which I think is proper
given that you can drastically change gamestate using approval mechanisms.
This proposal would increase the likelihood of someone squeaking in a rule.
- This removes the requirement that the approver either publish the public
display in question or link to a static version of it. BobTHJ used to
maintain an email version of the MoQ PD, but there was also an out of date
version on the wiki. What happens when you try to ratify the MoQ PD? I guess
it fails unless you unambiguously point to a specific one, but I'd rather
have that spelled out in this rule since its game changing potential is so
great. Also, without a persistent link it can be more of a pain to track
which old version of the display is being ratified.
- While I think 10 rdays makes more practical sense than 1 nweek, the fact
that B Nomic often falls into slumps means that if anyone makes some
accidental error and no one is paying attention because no one is really
playing, there goes gamestate. 1 nweek requires that someone at least turn
on the clock a couple times, so the likelihood of catching
errors/scoundrelship is greater.

That said, I DO like the idea of not needing all of 4 Support. Perhaps
that's a bit much.

spoon-business mailing list