Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Proposal: Timeline Preservation

7-1. Reached Quorum.—Chronos

Adminned at 26 Jul 2006 12:18:23 UTC

[ A small change to stop people replacing Node Events with completely different ones that bear their own name and no connection to the past. It has a side-effect of stopping endless back-hopping to add events one year earlier than the earliest existing event, but that doesn’t seem a very interesting thing to allow. ]

To the second paragraph of “The Timeline” rule, add:-

New or redescribed Node Events must have at least one keyword in common with at least one earlier Node Event (although the Arbiter may ignore this restriction).

Any Node Events which have a keyword of a Traveller’s name, yet share no keywords with earlier Node Events, shall be edited to remove Travellers’ names.

posted by Kevan at 25 Jul 2006 09:10:01 UTC Comments (10)

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

25-07-2006 11:31:51 UTC

for

Thelonious:

25-07-2006 12:53:29 UTC

for

Shadowclaw:

25-07-2006 16:05:34 UTC

for

Bucky:

25-07-2006 16:41:06 UTC

against because it has a side effect of not allowing new nodes before 33 AD except by the Arbiter.

Bucky:

25-07-2006 16:44:39 UTC

More importantly, it doesn’t allow the first event node to be rediscribed.

ChronosPhaenon:

25-07-2006 17:21:59 UTC

so?

TAE:

25-07-2006 21:56:36 UTC

imperial
Bucky’s first concern does bother me a little, but i’m ambivalent.

Saki:

25-07-2006 22:03:19 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

26-07-2006 01:16:23 UTC

Having the Arbiter choose the earliest usable game date doesn’t seem a particularly bad thing. As I say, it seems uninteresting to let people jump to earlier and earlier dates just to add a node event with their name.

Hix:

26-07-2006 02:32:16 UTC

for Seems okay to me.  If people think I’m not adding enough nodes/keywords in the past, they can still add node events by proposal, or something.  (If that starts happening a lot, I’ll take the hint and go create some nodes in the past).