Re: [s-d] [s-b] PD Reform

["Charles Schaefer" <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/11/6, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> 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
> rdays.


Do you want it to be faster? 2 rdays goes by pretty quick.

- 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.


But one objection being able to ruin ratification seems like too low of a
threshold.

- 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 maintain an email version of the MoQ PD, but there was also an out of date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.


This presents a problem for ratifying PDs like Rules and (as you pointed
out) Justice, which contain references to other pages as part of the same
PD. Can you think of an easier way to approve those than listing all of
them? (i.e. "I intend to ratify Rules 4E0, 4E1, 4E2, etc.") Also, a
persistent link (while it is nice to have) is not necessary since the rule
ratifies the PD at the time of submission.

- 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.


I'll concede that point and change it back to 1 nweek when I revise.

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


What timeframe / threshold for support and objection would you suggest?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss