== A statement on Sam Gailey's "Rollback" proposal ==
	by Meg Harrelson

I am opposed to a rules rollback.

Sam argues that we should "take the entire line back to formula," but I 
argue that there is no formula. The rules have been dynamic ever since they 
were written. The 1999 rules are no more a formula than were the rules of 
1998, 1997, 1996, or any other year.

I liked nearly all of the changes that were implemented in 2001. But even 
if I didn't, I would still not want to roll them all back at once. We've 
had a lot of new people join Quest since those changes were rolled out. At 
this point, changing back to older rules would cause confusion for people 
who aren't familiar with those rules. In addition, we've played with these 
rules (with very few further changes) for a year and a half, now, and two 
years by the time a rollback would take effect. It would be confusing for 
*everyone* if all those changes were suddenly reversed.

In addition, this proposal would create a number of logistic problems. If 
passed, it would mean that RC would have to go back to 1999 and consider 
all 66 proposals made between then and the fall of 2001. Since that can't 
possibly be accomplished before the annual rules sweep this year, it means 
we'd be going back to some version of the 1999 rules, with a few potential 
modifications. From props issues (like needing to buy combination locks and 
bells that were discarded when no longer needed) to characters who have to 
rebuild their stats (some of them for the second time), this would cause 
the same level of change that the 2001 changes initially caused. Now, even 
though I liked the changes, on the whole, I do agree that there were too 
many changes for one year. I don't think we should ever have that level of 
change at one time again, but that's exactly what this proposal would 
cause. It would violate a tenet of the RC's proposed charter, that "the RC 
should carefully control the number and/or scope of the changes being 
implemented in any given year, to help ensure an easy transition."

This proposal would generate much unneeded work for the RC. Sam wants to 
reconsider every rules change that was implemented in 2001. There was a 
massive amount of work entailed in those changes---two years' worth of 
work. It would take the RC up to two *more* years to reconsider every one 
of those changes. Not only would this cause the confusion and logistic 
problems mentioned above, it would mean that virtually all proposals 
currently in the queue would have to be put on hold for two years (and some 
of them are rollback proposals from the 1999 changes), and it would quite 
simply waste a lot of the RC's time.  We have a good set of rules right 
now. We need to work on cleaning up problems and refining those rules. We 
don't need to cause the RC to repeat over two years' worth of work.

I understand that Sam, and others, feel strongly that many or most of the 
changes made were bad for various reasons. But throwing out two years' 
worth of work and doing it all over again is an incredibly inefficient 
approach to dealing with that sentiment. The onus should be on those who 
disliked the changes to identify specific changes and argue the case for 
why they should be reversed, one change at a time. Even if this means 
dealing with all 66 proposals again (and I expect that it actually means 
fewer than that), it would at least mean any rollbacks would happen at a 
manageable pace. In addition, it would avoid the confusion of undoing 
changes that might pass again when re-proposed (e.g., combination locks, 
then cards, then combination locks again, then cards again).

Finally, I'd like to say that we don't actually know what the level of 
support for the 2001 changes is. There were a number of people who wrote 
with objections to the changes, in response to a letter that solicited 
objections, but there was never a letter soliciting positive comments, 
never a general poll, never a community discussion about the changes. There 
have been some very vocal responses to the changes, but we don't know 
whether those voices represent the majority or a vocal minority. I wonder 
how many people there are like me among the Quest membership, who support 
the changes that happened but haven't spoken up about it because we haven't 
been asked to. I urge the RC to consider the fact that a major rollback 
like the one being proposed runs the risk of creating just as much 
discontent as the 2001 changes themselves did. If we learned anything from 
that huge mess, hopefully it was to take things slowly and to take the 
community into account. This proposal does neither.