Re: [s-d] [s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 27, 2007 1:33 AM, William P. Berard
<william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'll have to answer quickly because I've got to make a move.
>
> your explanation shed a new light to the second, and most recent part,
> of your proposal. I have to say I find it very interesting that I
> Interpreted it in a more dangerous way than you obviously had in mind
> when writing it. I have no bias towards anyone here, as I am new, I
> just grabbed the text and read it and tried and think of possible
> loophole, point by point..
>
> now, with your explanations, then it all seems to make more sense, but
> bear in mind that If I interpreted it that wya, maybe it is because
> those intention were not completely transparent. the wording you use
> will ultimately become a rule if this proposal is to pass, and people
> will be arguing over its interpretation. Maybe I am the only one here,
> but I did not think that what you now explain, _ in particular_ the way
> Priest are obligated to answer consultation in accordance with the
> rules in general and the "permitted/regulated/prohibited" might need to
> be stressed out more in the actual text to prevent risks of abuse.
>
Interesting point. Let me re-read it and see if I can make that
language a little stronger.

> I am still supporting the second part, but I do not see any answer
> regarding the first comments. 0x44 has made a slightly different
> version of your proposal, and, in the state things currently are, I
> think I will vote for his, since he does not scrap the device laws. I
> still think there is a massive problem in the way you want to
> centralise playership around the powers of the registrar.

Oops! I typed up responses to your first batch of comments and then
pitched them when to told me more were coming. I then forgot to
re-address those comments. However, you may note that some of your
comments influenced my latest revision (ie devices are back, and
registrar powers are limited).
>
> This alone would be enough to actually disqualify both your and 0x44's
> proposal for my vote. As Hose validely mentioned, the more things you
> include, the less likely you are to get unconditioned support (and the
> fact that people will come off with a slightly alternate version of
> your proposal with effectively dilute your support), so I am curious of
> knowing what you think of my Meta-Proposal idea.
>
It is certainly an interesting idea, and could very well work.
However, I personally would like to see this state of emergency
resolved quickly by selecting a refresh proposal and then getting the
game back underway. That being said, if there is not enough consensus
to select a single refresh-proposal then your meta-emergency concept
might be a good way to go.

BobTHJ
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss