DaveShack said:
Unfortunately they already are, by voting no.
DS,
This is not a good framework. It's a good start, but it should never have been polled in the first place. There are too many holes in this.
I'm distressed at the insinuation in your words. More than most, I want to see this work. This proposal will not help things. Have we not learned that trying to band-aid things after we start does not work?
Most people will not want to deal with the massive number of updates this is going to need. Good grief - it was polled
2 DAYS after the initial idea was posted! Is there any wonder issues are being found and pointed out?
Come on, DS. You know the problems we have had trying to rush something that wasn't finished with the idea of "we'll just fix it later". That's a poor way to do things. Had we taken a week or so to allow everyone to review this, most of these problems would have been found, and fixed.
Do you really think I would work to stall or delay this without a good reason? There are some significant flaws in this proposal. They WILL cause problems. We OUGHT to take the time to fix them now.
I urge all citizen to review this proposal, and the point pro and con. If you think this is a viable ruleset, vote YES. If you think this ruleset has flaws that should be fixed before we start, vote NO.
-- Ravensfire