On 7/19/2019 9:34 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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.
Not immediately but will definitely put some careful thought to this at
some point in the next week - I'd sorta forgotten about the time
protections which was on my todo list last year at some point.
-G.
