- Mar 14, 2020
- 1,916
- 2,625
- 113
@ffs I didn’t “decide” a rule change, but only "decided how to decide" whether to adopt the proposed approach, based on feedback and discussion 
So I still view this as an open question.
Interestingly, I held off on proposing a rule change because I worried it might lead to arguments and tension within the SPF. But when broached I thought it would be good to hear from different perspectives, and try to make the best decision based on input.
My perspective is that there isn’t a “right” answer here. It seems like most people don’t feel strongly but others do in either direction. I also see the different sides:
- I personally don't see adding a trade profile as any serious burden;
- I understand reluctance to join if purely self-found and there is a risk (however unlikely given recent history) that an amazing item might get claimed;
- I understand that one unique feature of MFO is the risk of losing an amazing item;
- I understand that it can seem weird to keep a rule/process that hasn’t been used in years;
- I see value in maintaining tradition unless there is a clear reason to move on from it; and
- I think Pb_pal's idea for the community to provide an item to a winner who wanted to claim an item from someone who opted out could be its own interesting tradition within the SPF going forward.
Given the challenge of reconciling the perspectives, I may have to resolve this by zod-ing a 5os eth Runemaster and filling it with Los before personalizing it as a trophy to be passed along by MFO winners (bonus points to anyone who can guess the character name I'd create to do that). Oh wait, that won't resolve the issue . . . ?
In all seriousness, I really appreciate the constructive discussion so far. My main hope is that we please avoid having hard feelings arise from this discussion or outcome.
Everyone who has signed up so far was listed trade profile, so I assume they are okay proceeding with current rule or proposed modified rule. Please PM me if you: (a) would sign up but only if opt-out from claiming is authorized or (b) would withdraw or decline to sign up if opt-out from claiming is authorized or (c) something other variant or feedback that you'd prefer to provide via PM.
So I still view this as an open question.Interestingly, I held off on proposing a rule change because I worried it might lead to arguments and tension within the SPF. But when broached I thought it would be good to hear from different perspectives, and try to make the best decision based on input.
My perspective is that there isn’t a “right” answer here. It seems like most people don’t feel strongly but others do in either direction. I also see the different sides:
- I personally don't see adding a trade profile as any serious burden;
- I understand reluctance to join if purely self-found and there is a risk (however unlikely given recent history) that an amazing item might get claimed;
- I understand that one unique feature of MFO is the risk of losing an amazing item;
- I understand that it can seem weird to keep a rule/process that hasn’t been used in years;
- I see value in maintaining tradition unless there is a clear reason to move on from it; and
- I think Pb_pal's idea for the community to provide an item to a winner who wanted to claim an item from someone who opted out could be its own interesting tradition within the SPF going forward.
Given the challenge of reconciling the perspectives, I may have to resolve this by zod-ing a 5os eth Runemaster and filling it with Los before personalizing it as a trophy to be passed along by MFO winners (bonus points to anyone who can guess the character name I'd create to do that). Oh wait, that won't resolve the issue . . . ?
In all seriousness, I really appreciate the constructive discussion so far. My main hope is that we please avoid having hard feelings arise from this discussion or outcome.
Everyone who has signed up so far was listed trade profile, so I assume they are okay proceeding with current rule or proposed modified rule. Please PM me if you: (a) would sign up but only if opt-out from claiming is authorized or (b) would withdraw or decline to sign up if opt-out from claiming is authorized or (c) something other variant or feedback that you'd prefer to provide via PM.
Google