I don't exactly have a strong feeling one way or another, but given that
one is usually given ten words in a word list, writing nineteen other words
for each word on the list seems pretty doable. I wouldn't know, however—I'm
not the one writing apologies.
天火狐
On 22 August 2017 at 02:28, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:52 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2017, at 9:28 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandlight17@
>> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: Shorter Apologies
>>> Author: o
>>> AI: 2.0
>>>
>>> {{{
>>> Amend rule 2427 ("Yellow Cards"), replacing the number 200 with the
>>> number 180 wherever it appears in the text of the rule.
>>> }}}
>>>
>>> As the author of most of the recent apologies, I have to be honest: I’m
>>> using some incredibly forced language choices to stretch to 200 words. 10%
>>> shorter should help balance between keeping apologies on point by making it
>>> easier to write them, and keeping them appropriately punitive by requiring
>>> at least some reflection on the nature of the infraction.
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>> Is that enough? I'd be inclined to go with 150, or maybe even 100. I
>> don't like the rough number, and I don't feel like it will be big enough to
>> be worth the bother of a whole proposal. I support the basic idea of a
>> reduction though. 200 has always seemed a bit harsh.
>>
>>
>> Ironically, I started with 175 (12.5% shorter, but 25 words is a nice
>> round number), and thought I might get pushback for being too lax.
>>
>> Given the severity of the penalty - voting strength to zero until you
>> apologize, or until 30 days pass - I’d be okay with dropping it further.
>> Does anyone else want to chime in?
>>
>> -o
>>
> After thinking about it more, 100 seems a bit much for one jump. 150 feels
> about right to me personally.
>
> -Aris
>
>>
