Re: [s-d] [s-b] (no subject)

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Elliott Hird <
> penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Jan 2009, at 15:58, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>>
>>  [[pre-emption: ehird: BINA]]
>>>
>>
>> I really think we need Oracularities back instead
>
>
> I think oracularities might be nice too. But there are many ways of
> implementing changes that the priest can use (proposal, tweak, approve). Of
> course, they are slower or more prone to objection that were oracularities,
> so these might be useful to get back.
>
> But I think that those are separate questions. As is, a consultation like
> 168 should be answered SOMETIMES rather than NO, technically. That doesn't
> change the fact that the priest should submit an oracularity to fix the
> problem (in the case of 168, of course, it's not really a problem...). An
> oracularity is appropriate even if the answer isn't forcibly wrong.

Priests should not have been fixing ruleset problems with
Oracularities, because people should feel free to agree with a
judgment that there is a problem regardless of whether they like the
proposed fix. Oracularities are, however, nice ways of writing the
ruleset into a slightly clearer form. Fixes, on the other hand, can be
implemented with proposals (if they're controversial) or Tweaks (if
they aren't, which an urgently-needed fix shouldn't be).

Of course, the ruleset-clarification function was redundant, as the
Priest could have instead submitted a Tidiness List. And they still
can - those have just been folded into Tweaks, because they worked the
same, but they're still around in terms of function.

(Proto: "Tidiness List" returns, as an official synonym for Tweak.)
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss