Eh just keep it as it is imo. Until and unless a non-player abuses their status by calling 5 CFJs a week, there's no reason to stop it.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've frequently called more. Two is in my opinion not enough. > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 17:52 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> Ah, gotcha. I was racking by brain for any situation in the last N years >> where 1/week for non-players would have been a hardship for em, and I >> couldn't think of one - so doubling that for absolute safety seemed ok. >> >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> > >> > Oh, I misunderstood what you meant the compromise was. >> > >> > On 11/27/2017 01:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > > >> > > "Compromise - an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is >> reached by >> > > each side making concessions." >> > > >> > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> > >> No, currently they get 5. >> > >> >> > >> On 11/26/2017 10:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >>> This time's economy is indeed the first time we've ever charged for >> CFJs >> > >>> in history, I'm going with the spirit of the experiment but just as >> happy to >> > >>> take it out again (preferably bringing in Blots as a replacement). >> > >>> >> > >>> Meantime, is 2 per week (free) for a non-player about a good >> compromise? >> > >>> >> > >>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> > >>>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 21:56 Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> Honestly, I’m not sure there’s any reason we should cater to >> non-players. >> > >>>>> If you want to play the game, be a player. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Gaelan >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> I'm inclined to agree with this in general, but CFJs are a notable >> > >>>> exception, because otherwise deregistration shuts someone out of >> being able >> > >>>> to raise questions, including about whether eir deregistration >> works. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Generally, I'm of the opinion that there should be no restrictions >> on >> > >>>> CFJ-calling, except possibly for limits on excess cases. But if >> you'll >> > >>>> notice, those restrictions are only about lawfulness, rather than >> > >>>> possibility. >> >> -- >From V.J. Rada
