Proposal: Fix the proposal system

[JoeNotCharles]

Every time somebody makes a proposal with one small contentious element, we debate it for a while and then everyone stops posting and the thread falls off the front page. Meanwhile all the non-contentious parts could have passed easily. The worst example is the Minotaur article, but it's happened for LOTS of other proposals too. Even a lot of non-controversial proposals don't get action for weeks because judges put them aside to look at later and then forget about the thread.

I think this is a fundamental problem in our system: everything grinds to a halt without the dedication of judges to keep going back through the archives to find the proposals that are still open and prod people into voting.

So, I propose that we change the rules for new material to the following:

New material published by Wizards of the Coast is automatically adopted as printed unless someone makes a proposal to exclude or amend it. The time of adoption is:
- for printed books, 3 months after publication
- for Dragon and Dungeon articles, 3 months after the full issue download is made available
- for errata, as soon as it is published

New material from third-party sources can be proposed and voted on as usual.

This still gives a window to identify and exclude problematic material, but now if the judges sit on their hands and don't vote, it doesn't tie up options that players may want to use. And it gives judges that are worried about letting in items that are too strong more incentive to vote.

 

[renau1g]

I like it.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Yeah, looks good.

 

[CaBaNa]

Love this!

 

[Atanatotatos]

Uhmmm... do you realize that, for example, this rule would automatically rule out rhe oversized minotaur and accept the dragon version in its stead implicitly? I think there are plenty of problems to be had from this kind of approach...

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Well, A, not everyone sees that as a problem. Also anything that seriously contentious will be brought up, and thus not automatically approved...

Besides, we need to do something, do you have an alternate solution?

 

[garyh]

I like this idea. I'm generally for it. I'd even go farther, actually. After seeing the much shorter adoption period put in place by the 4e-ified Living Eberron, I'd argue for this approach with a ONE month adoption calendar.

Uhmmm... do you realize that, for example, this rule would automatically rule out rhe oversized minotaur and accept the dragon version in its stead implicitly? I think there are plenty of problems to be had from this kind of approach...

Yes, it would, UNLESS someone proposed to keep the old minotaur. Whether someone proposes to use the new minotaur or keep the old minotaur, it amounts to the same thing. And meanwhile, the 99% of non-controversial stuff becomes available.

 

[Ozymandias79]

I fully agree with Garyh and also I am also positive on shorter adoption period

OZY

 

[renau1g]

I like gary's suggestion as well. We've adopted it in LEB (1 month after DDI update) and I don't really foresee any major issues with it. I think it'll let PC's adopt the character they want to play sooner (and maybe make judges jobs easier as there will,hopefully, be less overhauling)

 

[garyh]

I'd been meaning to post something about the legality duration since L4Eb went with the shorter acceptance date, and when I saw JNC's great idea, it seemed like the perfect thread to mention it. Glad others like the idea, too.