We're talking about non-players here. There's no harm in saying "if you really can't wait a week for your next two, register, because if you're doing that many you're playing" IMO. In my mind, non-player CFJs aren't for asking general inquiry questions, the only reason it's there at all is because a CFJ may control a person's playerhood if they're kicked out somehow, so they need a basic right to justice. But that's rare. So is there really a situation where 3+/week are needed to serve this basic cause of justice?
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt 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. > > > > >
