Friday, May 14, 2021

Proposal: Easier on some Sourcers[Core]

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 May 2021 19:41:26 UTC

In rule named “Core Rules”

Add a subrule with the name “Audio Reading” and add the following description:

For each rule and subrule, the Collector or a Sourcer may volunteer to add a voice recording restating the respected rule or subrule and place it under the text. If a subrule or rule is ever changed, then the voice recording that was with the rule or subrule prior to the change is replaced with a new voice recording of the new rule or subrule is made of updated text of the new changes. If a rule or subrule is ever deleted, the voice recording respectfully to that rule or subrule is removed as well.

Comments

SupernovaStarbright: she/they

14-05-2021 02:29:13 UTC

Hmm, I like the idea of this, and if it’s done through a volunteer system, we don’t have to worry about who should do it. One thing I would say is that if a rule is changed, the voice recording needs to be deleted until someone volunteers to do a new one, that way, there isn’t an outdated voice recording at any point. Other than that, I feel like it would just be a lot of recording and rerecording, especially when a dynasty is just starting, but it only is an option, not a requirement, so I like it. Definitely voting for

Jumble:

14-05-2021 02:45:03 UTC

against probably should go in Annotated Ruleset instead of Core.

Clucky: he/him

14-05-2021 03:54:00 UTC

against

There is no way to force someone to record a change. So this could quickly get out of sync with the ruleset. (or arguably, force the admin enacting it to record something new which is a total non-starter)

Furthermore, this opens the possibility that the recorded rules say something differently than the written rule, and that could cause a whole host of problems.

I do not understand the problem this tries to solve. If you want to hear a spoken version of the rules, there are plenty of automated text to speech engines out there which you can use.

Josh: he/him

14-05-2021 05:47:37 UTC

I’m not against the idea. It does use the term “sources” which is about to become deprecated, and as Clucky says, it assumed that voice recordings will change automagically when rules do. With minor tweaks I’d be for but as written i have to go against

Raven1207: he/him

14-05-2021 06:38:07 UTC

@Josh

You mean Source**R**. It doesn’t say source**S**

Josh: he/him

14-05-2021 06:39:14 UTC

Sure thing, Captain corrects-typos-a-lot, it’s still not current language

Raven1207: he/him

14-05-2021 06:42:00 UTC

Damn that was a quick response

Raven1207: he/him

14-05-2021 06:44:13 UTC

Also I just noticed this terms for player/emperor changed so…

against

Jason: he/him

14-05-2021 14:37:54 UTC

against