Re: [s-d] [s-b] We didn't panic then, so we have to panic now.

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

I actually support what both of you have said and the problem is not only
with the refresh proposal. To me, it seems that the ruleset isn't used to
being under the strain of this much activity and prodding. Fix it if it can
be fixed, but if it requires an emergency every nweek to try and make
progress, that isn't too exciting. I call for a revolt every emergency until
two consecutive nweeks without an emergency occur.

- Hose

On Dec 10, 2007 2:54 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2007 2:23 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 2007 12:02 PM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I say it time for the Fourth Era of B Nomic and a Great Reset of nweek
> > 134
> > > or 135. Viva la revolution (and Las Vegas)!
> > >
> > I personally would like to see our current ruleset work. Just because
> > there were issues with my refresh proposal doesn't mean that overall
> > the concept can't work. I take responsibility for not defining things
> > more clearly, and I move to fix the bugs in the current system rather
> > than start over from scratch.
> >
> > BobTHJ
>
>
> I support that. We can iron out some of the bugs that have come up
> recently
> without having to wipe everything. It would be a shame to lose some of the
> neat framework that already exists.
>
> Billy Pilgrim
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss