On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > I think this would be good. It might help to note that my main motivation > for CFJs (and maybe for others) is that while I know I can informally ask > for help, CFJing just seems to be a strictly better choice as it's the same > thing, except its now totally official too. I feel pretty vulnerable at > first, getting free, official information is a goldmine.
Yah and I don't want to discourage that, that's why I think a short official waiting period (much smaller waiting period than the CFJ cycle) would be good... just to make what just happened (you: "I CFJ..." us: "you don't need to because blah blah" you: "ok great, I retract it then!") maybe happen more often and lighten the case load. > There is also that thing that was brought up that from a new players point > of view, their CFJ might seem like something novel that needs judgement, > but older players have already passed that and already know what its all > about, but the newb doesn't know that yet. And let's not forget that this can happen - newb: "the rules say this..." us: "but we play like this". newb: "but the rules don't *say* that". us: "well we'll be darned, they don't anymore and we didn't notice!" So fresh eyes are always good - again, with maybe a pause so we can see which way it will go. > If it helps, maybe adding keywords or something to CFJs could be good to > make it more readable, or make it more obvious that it merits reading, > because its basically another "ruleset" to need to know. It could be good > too to have a set of "Core" CfJs with content that Newbs often bring up in > CfJs so that they can be easily pointed to. I heartily support this and may get to it one day :). Though if anyone else wants to create a foundational list I can maintain it somewhere...
