I personally prefer to not have a lint screen. It makes passing proposals
more tedious and we have protosals anyway.
I dont think it would solve the issue where people are just silent about
ruletext problems, because people could just be silent in that new context
again imo.
However, I DO like that checklist idea. I'd support a cheat-sheet based on
that to be distributed informally. I'm definitely keeping stashing that
list for myself regardless lol.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > > {{{
> > > The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the
> [Rulekeepor/Promotor]
> > > with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt
> SHOULD
> > > contain a list of common errors in proposals.
> >
> > "theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)
> >
> > > Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing
> an
> > > item with Consent.
> > >
> > > It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly
> stated
> > > that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues listed
> in the
> > > Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, any proposal
> can
> > > still be passed]
> > > }}}
> >
> > For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or quoting
> the
> > reviewers. Otherwise someone would need to track this too.
>
> "CAN be pended with 2 Support, with the Supporters stating in their support
> message that they have..."
>
> (In R1728, listing supporters is a SHOULD, albeit a regularly-ignored one).
>
> However, past experience points to a big loophole in this, so I'm not sure
> it's
> worth it...
>
>
>
