RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proposal: Bandwidth Limiting That Works?

[<gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> gritter,
> 
> You're misunderstanding the proposal.  Players are limited to 6000
> characters on the ballot per nweek, regardless of the number of
> proposals involved.  They could not submit forty 5000-character
> proposals.  They could submit forty *150-character* proposals, maximum.

Okay, fair enough. My bad. I misinterpreted that part. But I'm still utterly 100% against any rule changes that allows players to submit forty proposals (of any length). Period. 

Bandwidth problems caused by volume of proposals are much more annoying than bandwidth problems caused by the length of a single proposal. 

I support Rule 212 because it limits the *number* of proposals, and I will support no proposal that
a) attempts to repeal 212
b) attempts to manage bandwidth by any metric other than number of proposals
c) attempts to increase the limit on number of proposals in the current version of 212. 

The only one I might budge on in the future is c), but even that is EXTREMELY unlikely. Only if the game looked like it was going to die because of lack of proposals. Which doesn't seem to be an issue!
 
> In the rare event of that happening, that too will have its own
> self-policing effects, since more than a few players will just vote
> against all of them in exasperation.

Exactly. That's my point. It is *exasperating* to have to go through forty proposals. Whether they pass or not is not the point. Frankly, that itself is the problem -- there may be good proposals in those forty, but since I don't have the time to adequately consider forty proposals on their own merit I would have to vote on them based of the fact that some idiot sent in forty proposals. 

I prefer to vote based on the merit of the proposal. Proposal Spam forces Those Of Us Who Have A Life into voting against or for proposals without being able to take appropriate time to debate and consider them effectively. Look at how much traffic we generate *with* a cap on proposals already!

The only acceptable bandwidth limitation (IMHO) is that which limits the number of proposals. Period.

> The problem with the number-of-proposals limit is it is causing players
> to submit proposals containing multiple non-interdependent changes that
> might be adopted on their merits if they could be submitted as separate
> proposals.  

Yup. That's exactly why it's so great. Forces players into submitting multiple (to a max of three) short, to-the-point proposals. Since you've only got three shots per week, players should put more thought and value into those three that you have to use than spamming the game with bunches of useless, dumb, ill-considered proposals. 

And, best of all, it means there's a cap (number of players * 3) of proposals that anyone will have to deal with in a week. It prevents spam! Right now, that cap is manageable -- if our player roster doubled and everyone was proposing, I might even support *decreasing* the limit from three to two. 

> If you really want a limit on number of proposals as well, what about a
> 10-prop-per-nweek limit, plus the 6000-char. limit?

Character limits are an ineffective idea. First, it's damn hard to track and a burden on the admin. And it's a de facto limit now...long proposals are going to have a tough time passing, as you said yourself. 

Nope. I *love* 212 as it is now. Anything else just ain't bandwidth limitations! 

Instead of trying to repeal bandwidth limitations, why don't you use what proposals you have more effectively?

--gritter