09-17-2018, 06:09 PMSlappydoodle Wrote:

09-17-2018, 02:55 PMErM Wrote: I think this is a really great idea. I can't see any immediate downside to it aside from the face that somebody from head office is going to have to put some time into polling and what now.


I think I disagree with most of this. I am of the opinion that these things seem to get worse the longer head office waits to make a ruling. In the most recent case, they made a rule relatively quickly. People then voiced their opinion of that rule in various levels of productiveness and the head office was able to tweak that rule after the fact to make improvements based on community feedback. I think that is a good way to approach these issues.

Enacting a law with the idea of , “Well, no matter how rushed this is or how badly written, we can always just amend it later” makes no sense to me. Treat people with respect. Deal with them in good faith. This is a community and as such community involvement is important.  The other way is guaranteed to create bad blood and drama, as it did in this case.

I think the bad blood created while we would be waiting around for a long public comment period would be worse than the bad blood of a rule that is a bit overzealous for a few days and then gets dialed back.