(2-09) Reduce Mine Yields

[ma_kuh]

Are these tweaks going unsponsored?
(Also: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2-11a-counterproposal-reduce-mine-yields.680320/ ; https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2-11b-counterproposal-reduce-mine-yields.680407/)

 

[N.Core]

The other counterproposals are sponsored, this one should too then @Recursive

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by balparmak.

 

[Stalker0]

The other counterproposals are sponsored, this one should too then @Recursive

I don't agree with this implicitly. Sponsorship is NOT a rubberstamp. If devs don't like a particular proposal, or simply don't want to commit their time to it....then it doesn't get a vote. We certainty shouldn't be giving all counterproposals some innate sponsorship protection just because they happen to be another flavor of an idea.

 

[Rekk]

Sponsored

I don't agree with this implicitly. Sponsorship is NOT a rubberstamp. If devs don't like a particular proposal, or simply don't want to commit their time to it....then it doesn't get a vote. We certainty shouldn't be giving all counterproposals some innate sponsorship protection just because they happen to be another flavor of an idea.

100% agreed, but balparmak sponsored this one before the sponsorship phase.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.