I find that, when economic limits are put on proposals, inevitably it becomes less "why do I need to pay to propose" and more "why do I need to pay to fix this typo". It's true that I did pay in this case, but pending a proposal is very expensive right now (non-officeholders can only propose 3/month if anyone else objects). Making it harder to propose simple fixups is very bad for the game because they tend not to get written. If you have 3 proposals per month, are you really going to spend one of those on a small fix that everyone agrees is good? Imposing delays on simple fixup proposals is not good either, especially since they're the sort of proposals that are easily forgotten so the author may forget to resolve the intent.
It's tempting to play spoiler and just to object to all intents to prove a point, honestly. (disclaimer: in the above, when I say typo, I'm assuming that we can't use the cleaning rule on it because it involves some semantic change) On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 at 18:12, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > That still has the problem of delaying proposals by an additional 4 days, > > which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with controversial > ones. > > I feel like review periods are good things, especially when you're > specifically > asking Agora if the proposal is enough in the good interests of the game > to get > out of paying for it. > > Given the Promotor's schedule (close to a fixed weekly time, say Mondays), > there's only 4 days in the week (e.g. Thu-Sun) that it would delay > anything. > And since the Assessor might delay up to a week anyway, the 4 days is > not big. > > > > > > >
