On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> I join this pledge. Sorry, G.
>
> Actually, with all the annoying support messages it's not such a bad
> temporary solution come to think of it; what I'm objecting to is the
> Yally's accompanying suggestion that we should just get rid of
> distributability altogether (after only a one-week trial) rather than
> fixing the support method to something that works. Gee, some things
> do suck in the first implementation. But I thought we were more willing
> to change a bit than that!
>
> And yes, I know that supporting this pledge doesn't automatically mean
> voting for the rollback, but the pledge was associated with the repeal.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
Okay, what about without objection? If, as you claim, we lack
restraint in our supports and are thus letting in proposals that
shouldn't be distributable, you could just object to said proposals.
It's much less spammy and gives people time to think about proposals.
Right now, I agree people (myself included) are submitting proposals
hastily, so I think we should encourage proto-ing somehow ("players
SHOULD publish..." at the very least).
The downside of without objection is the fact that any one player can
veto everyone else from making rule changes indefinitely. We'd need
some kind of limit on allowed objections per week, or another method
of making things distributable, to stop it from being scammed.
