On Jun 4, 2013 2:34 AM, "Charles Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4 Jun 2013, at 07:22, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:28 AM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> 7469 3 0 O scshunt Proposal editing > >>> AGAINST, shouldn't require support > >> > >> Yes it should, given that other players can pay to reduce > >> distributability, and one should probably generally replace a proposal > >> that they've paid for with a similar one. Editing gives a powerful way > >> for players, esp. the Promotor, to avoid the distributability 'game', > >> and support is intended to avoid that. > > > > Maybe, but as appeal cases and Notability have shown, support mechanisms have a high apathy bar, and it would be easy for the author to accidentally let the proposal be distributed without eir edits. > > It might be good practise to submit proposals (or protos), wait a few days, then pay for their Distributability after checking for errors. > > -- Walker
No, this is awful because of the memory overhead. -scshunt
