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.
* actions which would be problematic if performed too frequently have a
time limit. [Agency spam scam]
* the changes described in the proposal can be discerned from the
proposal itself, without needing to reference the current ruleset, i.e.
by specifying titles of changed rules and providing previous text
instead of replacing rule text entirely [pet peeve of mine. Don’t know
if anybody else minds]
I mind it too, unless it replaces the _entire_ rule - not just because I
want to see what it changes but also because I imagine race conditions
like one proposal splitting a paragraph and another editing a later one
by number...
* all rules are created with sufficient power, and the AI is high enough
* created rules are formatted correctly.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
