Ardchoille wrote:As to "enforced in this way", if you are looking only for examples of proposals removed after submission, you may be missing player or mod comments that caused text to be amended in drafting.
I don't suppose you have so much as a single example of that? Because I haven't found such. And yes, obviously I looked through proposal comments.
Ardchoille wrote:It is fortunate that Kryo's acuity brought that detail to light, prompting the stats review to ensure consistency.
For a group of people so stubbornly insistent on refusing to accept any blame for your mistakes or issue any apologies, you're awfully keen to accept laps of honour when things go your way. Nonetheless, yes, thank you Kryo and congratulations on your acuity. Clearly, I was wrong to question you. In this particular case.
Ardchoille wrote:After discussion with the stats guys, GA mods agreed that the category should be amended to take in the possibility of "tightening" to the extent of banning personal guns -- basically, what many of us assumed already existed. But, because we simply don't have the stats to account for a total ban, these will still have to be "regulated" bans.
NS "doesn't have the stats to account for" quite a lot of what the WA does. I'm not sure why this particular category has to be so exactly wedded to the game mechanics, but as you say, the players don't have access to that information, so we're really just spectators here anyway.
Ardchoille wrote:What that means is: you can't tighten the noose completely. You can slide it very close. The more exemptions from a ban you have, the less "banny" it is.
This is, to me, still horribly vague, especially given how obviously clear the other categories are. It's adding even more complexity to a category that players already routinely struggle to write legal proposals for. So, to take an example, would the proposal in this thread now be illegal?
And if a proposal is "too banny", then what happens? Stick in Moral Decency as Kryo said, or is it simply something the WA cannot do at all?
Ardchoille wrote:The queries about Gun Control have prompted the stats guys to look closely at some of the older categories and make some changes that won't affect proposal legality. Discussion on these categories is ongoing, but purely technical. If any changes cause a different approach to a category, we'll let you know. We're discussing the possibility that the stark Outlaw/Legalise choice in Gambling may be brought into line with Gun Control's format, allowing graded regulation and perhaps more use of the category.
As noted players don't have access to stats, but if this "review" involves anything at all that players could be involved with, I'd plead that we be allowed to do so. Virtually all WA decisions are dumped on as fiat, and that hasn't historically gone very well.
, but lets not bump a dead thread? Write your own proposal if you'd like to debate it. This one needs to die.