Yes, expensive proposals are a paradigm shift to what you're used to.
We played like that (even more expensive, actually) from 2001-2005 or
so. It worked fine. I would like to try it again and not have it
sabotaged out of the gate. So I won't argue that it breaks things
or doesn't. It's a gameplay choice that I hope people will try out
for a bit before instant-repeal.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> 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
> 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.