I don’t think it’s a huge deal, a low number is ok.

I’d vote for but there’s no point since there won’t be a rule called award economics by the time this passes. 

SingularByte, 2.3 says it changes its text instead of getting repealed. Do you think that won’t work for some reason?

Qwazukee, the problem is that it gets iteratively, monotonically smaller. I can virtually guarantee that without amendment that 20 will be 1 by the time we get to Cameras and Groundhogs. There’s no way for the number ever to increase, and on average it gets cut in half with every change.

No, SB would be right except he’s off by a few days, I think.

I know it dwindles to nothing, but since it’s a freebie, that doesn’t bother me. Bill Murrays should have to earn their Icicles/Books/Groundhogs/whatever.

Actually, I just ran a simulation and the randomness is a little more unpredictable than I first thought. Who woulda thunkit?

http://pastebin.org/7073

Nevertheless, my vote stands. (Unless it doesn’t? It occurs to me that I might not officially be a Bill Murray until an admin adds me to the GNDT.)

@everybody: I made the rule. I made it with specifically that intention (that its value would be lowered over time).

I was going to let it slide, but technically you need to revote on everything, I just added you.

, per arth

Yeah, okay, .

What I meant was that the rule called award economics would be renamed icicle economics. Since it’s been renamed since my last comment, this proposal would do nothing.

Since the rule no longer exists as such.