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

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Charles Schaefer <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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.


Don't want it to be faster, no. I just thought that part of why you thought
approval to be a pain was the length of the process. So it puzzled me that
this still said 2 rdays.

>
>
> - 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.


Agree to disagree. Actually, I dunno...


> - 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.


Good points.


> - 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.


Cool.

>
>
> 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?


I think it would be nice to have to obtain active support rather than just
gliding by without objection. 2 support? And then 0/1/etc objections, I
don't know.

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