On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Pavitra wrote: > For example, repealing R2126 might have been a good way to kick off the > changes. Yes, there would have been a time of chaos, but it would have > been one in which we made many individually moderate changes to a broken > but familiar ruleset, not one in which we struggled simultaneously to > grok, fix, and decide whether we cared about a suddenly new system.
I think it's more that the replacement can't jump to the same level of complexity as what it replaces (R2126 was one rule, but it was a long and complicated rule that should have been multiple rules). We did it that way once; we repealed an entire three-currency system with auctions, bonds, debts, banks, etc. and replaced it with "Everyone has 7 action points a month + one per held office. Each action point can be used to distribute a proposal, increase voting power, or remove a blot". That was it. That was the smoothest big repeal of the three (although it too had a lull). I should have stuck to my plan and put out the mechanism (which hasn't had bugs show up really, that was the part that was protoed the most) and not put in a handful of cut and paste card types. Gave into temptation and suggestions. Sorry. Really. (Though, admittedly, not sorry enough to wish it hadn't passed -- it can be fixed easily enough). -G.
