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.
