Using Support requires an explicit Intent and a 4 day delay, neither of which
is necessary for this case. I should have made this more clear, but there is
intentionally no requirement that the the pender is not one of the linters.
I’ll add a (correct!) MAY in the next iteration, or just change it to the
pender and one other. I originally avoided that to prevent awkwardness when
pending on behalf.
Gaelan
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 3:51 PM, 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...
>
>
