Alexis wrote: > > Amend Rule 217, "Interpreting the Rules", by inserting "authorial > > intent," after "past judgements,". > > Quite opposed; this would require judges to read mailing lists to determine > intent.
Fair enough! Like I said, mostly there to provoke discussion. Would you feel differently if the Rulekeepor kept references to relevant discussions? > > - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or > > the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or > > came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, e CAN, by > > announcement, award emself that type of Glitter. > > > > This would not allow multiple Glitter awards for consecutive Ribbons, e.g. > from a series of proposals (except for the Assessor). Is this intentional? It intentionally replicates the current behaviour. I suspect _that_ was unintentional, but I figure it'd be better to wait and see what people think the behaviour should be when G.'s CFJ about it resolves than try to "fix" it now. -twg
