Comments | scottwoods: Motion: No changes to NPS for 2 years

scottwoods

Motion: No changes to NPS for 2 years

Aug 20, 2009 19:17

Check out the intended motion I just posted in the PSi members forum for discussion between now and next March.

Yes, I'm serious, and that's acknowledging that there was at least one change already made at the SlamMasters meeting a couple of weeks ago that I disagree with a lot (repeal of the no-repeat rule at Finals).

( Read more... )

slam rules, psi, nps, slammasters

Comments 10

givemelaughter August 21 2009, 04:23:23 UTC

I have no vote, but it sounds good to me. I would possibly add an allowance for exceptions in the case of an unmitigated disaster that obviously shouldn't be repeated the following year.

scottwoods August 21 2009, 15:14:32 UTC

Well, some people think certain things are already disasters, like no indies at NPS. There will always be a "disaster" on deck to someone. I just want us to sit back, do the show, and really determine what really needs changed and how.

learicist August 21 2009, 14:56:26 UTC

I think not constantly shifting petty things is a good idea--but I also think it would be pretty darn shady to not pass the repeat-at-finals rule after it was debated and decided on. Since that already happened, I think the only honorable thing to do would be to honor it--but if you then wanted a motion to table everything else for 2 years, then people could decide if they want that. But to run around the no repeat/repeat thing would be, in my humble opinion, uncool, and send a bad message that would simply confirm the (often unfair) suspicions that the EC pushes through whatever they want regardless of slam-fam input. Just sayin'.

scottwoods August 21 2009, 15:12:52 UTC

I am not suggesting we revoke any changes made during the August 2009 SM meeting. I expect us to honor that meeting. I agree: it would be shady. That's why I'm not suggesting that. I can clear that up in the motion, sure.

learicist August 21 2009, 15:15:24 UTC

Awesome! As always, Mr. Woods, thank you for the thoughtful and tireless efforts you put into this thing we all do. :0)

momoyeahmomo August 21 2009, 17:36:46 UTC

Has the lightning struck you yet mi amigo?

scottwoods August 23 2009, 12:20:35 UTC

Nope!

momoyeahmomo August 23 2009, 16:37:14 UTC

I'm shocked and amazed!

stefan11 August 23 2009, 04:35:25 UTC

I would treat a "no-repeat" for from yer to tyear as not covered by this proposal. We already had many versions of repeat. So, why not to try something different.

Yey to all the rest. Though I would actually prefer 3 years window (though some of the current ways were with uus for at leat 1-2 years, so maybe it's less important)...

By the way, think about it as a possible friendly ammendment.

scottwoods August 23 2009, 12:20:26 UTC

That HAS to go under this proposal, and I say that as someone who doens't like it as it stands. We have to quit guessing about this one and just see what happens for a whlie. I wish we'd have come to the compormise first, but I'm willing to ride this out for a couple of years and then put in the compromise.

It's my hope that in a couple of years, we're all about compromise in these areas, giving us true "middle ground" for some of the rules of this event.