On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> The reason I am so reluctant to drop this exception is twofold. In part, it
> is because I have a general dislike of exceptions. They make everything
> messier, and if you use them often enough you start including them in spots
> where you don’t need them and failing to include them where you do need
> them. Additionally, I don’t like the fact that officers are currently
> pressured to take actions conditionally.
This point has taken me from "maybe" to solid disagreement, actually.
I think it's far better to do conditional convergences of the gamestate
by doing "If X is true, then I do P to get to state Z. If X is false,
I do Q to get to state Z. Either way, we're now in state Z". I think
that's better than leaving it amorphous and up to CFJ - I think the
mindset for the officer of "I'm required to do this - how can I fix this
while I wait for the CFJ to go through" is a valuable one.
The only reason I think this PM-to-Speaker thing is requiring an exception
is because it compounds error (as we've seen) when there's a clear winner
that triggers the requirement, but then later events could make the
most-recently-laureled more uncertain.
