I am considering, as part of my plotting-to-become-rulekeepor work, some sort
of automatic proposal generator (basically, some sort of web-based interface
for editing the ruleset, get changes dumped into a human-readable proposal).
Obviously something like that catching on would benefit me (because I can parse
the proposals back into a set of changes with no human intervention), but could
also be convenient for you. To be clear, if this ever happens, it wouldn’t be
coming for another few weeks at least.
Also, while we’re at it, I’ve long campaigned for a list somewhere of common
mistakes that show up in lots of proposals. (Extremely common: CAN/MAY
confusion, lack of “by announcement,” switches dumped on the {registrar, prime
minister, fat controllor, proposal author}.) In the past I’ve proposed this a
time or two as a regulation with some sort of mechanism for ensuring players at
least claim they checked it before submitting proposals, but maybe it’d work as
just an unofficial document (or an official one that players only SHOULD read).
Gaelan
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:03 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com
> <mailto:g...@canishe.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Replies inline.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/31/19 8:28 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>> {
>>>> Amend rule 2350 “Proposals” as follows:
>>>> * replace “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement“ with “A player
>>>> CAN create a proposal With 23 Hours Notice.”
>>>> * after the list, add a new paragraph: “Additionally, a player CAN, but
>>>> SHALL NOT, create a proposal by announcement, specifying the same
>>>> information required above.
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Explanation: reduce promotor work by reducing the number of proposals
>>>> created and soon retracted in favor of a minorly-fixed version. It’s 23
>>>> hours so people don’t have to count minutes, just do it at about the same
>>>> time on the next day. The CAN but SHALL NOT mechanism is there to avoid
>>>> ossification if dependent actions break.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not completely convinced that this would be significantly better than
>>> the status quo, but I will of course defer to the H. Promotor's judgement.
>
> Thanks, both of you. I really appreciate it when people think of
> reducing my (not inconsiderable) workload. However, I don't think this
> change would really help. Firstly, as a player, I tend to oppose any
> change that makes it harder to submit proposals. As Promotor, I note
> that a rapidly retracted proposals don't tend to create that much
> extra work. Sure, they can be confusing, but I almost always catch
> them quickly before doing the full write up. Furthermore, having to
> check if people had actually given intent and gone through the
> deadline would actually add to my workload, although admittedly I'd
> probably just trust that people were following the requisite rule. For
> these reasons, I don't think this particular change would be a good
> idea, though I really appreciate the thought.
>
> On a semi-related note, I keep thinking of publishing an informal
> style guide for how to format proposals (not the rule content, which
> is more the Rulekeepor's domain, just the proposal itself). If people
> followed it, it would save me some time. Would people be averse to the
> idea?
>
> -Aris
