Proposal: Change the way proposals work!

Walking Dad · Mar 3, 2010

Currently, if someone makes a proposal to ban something, it isn't allowed until the judges completed voting.

As the basic assumption is, that

New material published by Wizards of the Coast is automatically approved one month after it is published. (For Dragon and Dungeon articles, this means the time that the full issue download is made available.) The exceptions are:

Official updates as published here are approved immediately.

Material marked "playtest" or "preview" is not approved.

Material published online but marked as a "debut" from an upcoming print product is not approved until one month after the print product is published.

Anyone may propose that material be amended or excluded, using the proposal system described above. In this case, the material under discussion is not approved until voting is finished.

the material is automatically approved, this seems strange. It should be changed to allow all material until it was voted to be not allowed.

This change would affect:

The following is the list of material which is not currently approved because voting has not concluded (in most cases it has deadlocked without resolution). If you want your character to use one of the items on this list, please make a proposal so that the judges know there is interest and can reopen the voting.

From Arcane Power: Not allowed: Grease, and Illusory Wall are not allowed, because the judges have not come to an agreement about how their mechanics should work. (Discussion here)

From Divine Power: Not allowed: The Taunting Visage feat, and the Astral Seal and the Recovery Strike powers, are not allowed because they have been proposed as being too powerful and the judges have not voted on them yet. (Discussion here and here)

From Dragon 364: Not allowed: The "The Ashen Covenant" article is not allowed, because at the time it was proposed the judges did not agree on whether articles with only magic items should be approved or not. (Discussion here)

From Dragon 368: Not allowed: In the "Running Gladiatorial Campaigns" article, the whip, net and associated feats, and the Called Shot, Staff Fighting, Arena Specialist, Catspaw Style, Exotic Fighting Style, and Grudge Style feats are not allowed, because they were proposed as being too powerful and the judges have not yet voted on them. Not allowed: In the "Running Gladiatorial Campaigns" article, the Hunting Spider Style feat is not allowed, because they need to be amended to work with the new mechanics of Dual Strike and the judges have not yet voted on it. (Discussion here)

From Dragon 369: Not allowed: The "Playing Minotaurs" article is not allowed, because it removes the Oversized ability which several players have already taken, and the judges have not agreed on whether we should follow suit. (Discussion here and here)

From Dragon 369: Not allowed: In the "Bazaar of the Bizarre" article, Ghoststride Boots and Giantkind Gloves are not allowed, because they were proposed as being too powerful and the judges have not yet voted on them. (Discussion here)

From Dragon 371: Not allowed: In the "Legacy of Acererak" article, the backgrounds are not allowed, because they were proposed as being more powerful than the PHB2 backgrounds and the judges have not yet voten on them. (Discussion here)

From Dragon 372: Not allowed: The "Masters of the Planes" article is not allowed, because some judges feel that Epic Destinies will not come into play and the judges have not agreed on whether to ban only Punisher of the Gods (see above) or the entire article. (Discussion here)

From Dragon 374: Not allowed: The "White Lotus Academy" article is not allowed, because some of the powers in it were proposed as too powerful and the judges have not agreed on whether to ban them. (Discussion here)

Note, their is nothing to approve (so ban until approved), but to disapprove (so allow until their is a con-sense it is broken).

I think the old 'ban until approved' is a relict from the 'everything has to be approved separately' times.

Ozymandias79 · Mar 3, 2010

I vote YES to this proposal

CaBaNa · Mar 3, 2010

Great idea WD.

Kalidrev · Mar 3, 2010

I also vote YES to this.

elecgraystone · Mar 3, 2010

Yep, good idea. As is, a stalled proposal actually means a ban so in essence a stall or a pass halts the feature. With auto accept, this does seem odd. Good catch.