Which proposals are you referring to, exactly? I was following Josh’s example when redoing the Quarantine proposal by writing over the entire rules, but I don’t think doing otherwise would have really shortened it up that much. It couldn’t really be broken down, as any one part passing, in absence of the others, would break the game.

as for my proposal, I’m trying to pass an entire new game mechanic. As such I needed to edit a large portion of the rules. There were parts I could have left out and proposed later but I wanted to get the entire mechanic in place.

Sorry about the long proposals.

@lilomar: yeah that one is among them. I understand the dilemma involved, but just looking at it provokes the tl;dr response.

I’ve been in that situation before too, writing proposals of ridiculous length, but I’m just saying any time there is another way, that would be far better.

I’d say it was better to just quote the parts of the rule you’re changing, as concisely as possible, rather than reprinting the entire rule. People are voting on the changes, so the clearer you can make those changes, the better - if all you’re doing is removing a few words, it’s better just to say that, than to force people to figure it out with a spot-the-difference.

This proposal from Josh seemed quite bad for that; I had to feed the before-and-after versions into a diff tool to check what he was actually changing, and what (if I was voting) I would have been voting on.

Sorry about that.

I tend to reproduce rules in their entirity because I personally find the context useful when looking at the effects of a major rule change. At one point it was fashionable to highlight changes using bolds and strikethroughs; that seems to have fallen out of favour.