On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:33 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > >> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 > > AGAINST. Very much not keen on timeline control given the > > sensitivity of our game to time (one of the ways to kill the > > game entirely with a lower-powered rule, potentially). > > I forget how I voted on this, but it worried me too. I couldn't find any bugs > in the proposal, but it was complicated enough that it made me think there > could be unanticipated results.
So, I'm receptive to y'all's concerns. I really really don't want to break anything. That said, my proposal is intended basically as a straightforward codification of our existing precedents. It's widely agreed that codifying precedents is a good thing. Furthermore, I don't see how I could break anything vital, given that the proposed rule *explicitly* doesn't try to apply the new timeline system to anything higher powered than the new rule, such as R101 or AiaN. I'm not really sure what you're worried I'd break. If you want stronger protections added, such as an amendment to AiaN expressly exempting it from temporal trickery, I'd be happy to add that. However, I'd really like to know what vetting/strengthening process might make this more acceptable. Otherwise we can never add any rule governing this process to the ruleset, which would be an incredible shame. -Aris
