On Sunday 18 November 2007 18:24:35 Ed Murphy wrote: > pikhq wrote: > > > The recordkeeporship of VCs being split amongst these different offices just > > makes VCs far too tricky to handle. Just leave it all with the Accountor. > > Also, why does the Accountor keep track of all VDs, but not all VCs? > > VC tracking is the bulk of the Assessor's workload - I have to update a > set of perpetual figures every time a batch of proposals is resolved, > and every time a judgement is delivered - hence the attempt to split it > up more finely. Resolving proposals is simpler, since the figures are > non-perpetual; the complex part (determining which rule changes are > successful) is handled by the Rulekeepor. > > VDs would come into play less frequently. I originally had them colored > as well, but was later convinced to drop that; as a consequence, they > can also be handed to the Accountor, who otherwise would only have to > track a few rare types of VC. > > Separate VC reports for every color would be a bit more work for the > players to look up their current holdings, but given that one or two > players still routinely vote beyond their EVLOP without noting that > they're doing so, I have little sympathy on the topic. > >
Mmkay. I *still* don't like the idea of VDs, but the Accountor change is a fairly good one.
