Under the "Proposals" section, paragraph 3, sentence 2 currently reads:
"What constitutes a proposal is entirely up to you, but our guidelines are there is a light guardrail to help nudge us toward success."
I believe the is was meant to be as.
The advice from our Advisory Board is that Consensus Press will become more infeasible as membership grows, actually, so restricting membership in some way is important at least while the experiment gets on its feet.
Although if we’re already nearing that “less feasible” number that makes sense too.
Some members have stated what their proposals will be, however as it appears to be an eclectic mix the longer the timeframe we will have to vote on suggestions the more research we could do to make these votes educated votes.
I think that if everyone is given until the end of the month, the proposals should be disclosed after September. If members would like to post their proposals here, everyone is welcome to do it. To open all proposals "as they come" might put the proposals that come later at disadvantage - they will not get as much time for consideration.
Two weeks for the first stage of voting is more realistic for people with full time jobs and family obligations.
My proposed timeline is as follows:
October 1 to 15: Round 1 (up or down voting on proposals)
October 16 to the end of October: Top ten proposals can be expanded by their proposers (max. 1,000 words); they might solicit feedback and suggestions from other members to help them do so.
November, 1st week: Top ten proposals (now potentially expanded) are given comments by the Advisory Board.
November, 2nd week: Round 2 (ranked choice voting)
I agree, one week is too short for both stages one and two.
If anyone has a family emergency/medical issue the one week seems far too short to fairly evaluate all proposals, so I think that extending this would be fair.
ETA: I think that next year the submission for the 10 and 100 word proposals should be two weeks (members will have a year to think and start on this) but increase the first round voting (and research of ideas) to three weeks
As far as the timelines, I don’t necessarily see a problem with one week for round 1 voting, since I suspect most of us will do it in one long sitting. I do think 2-weeks would be more fair for round 2 long proposals though. I wonder if the advisory board would be able to schedule their review / research for specific days so it’s a shorter window of time and allows more for the longer proposals.
Just think of this as fine press Tinder.
My guess is that the swipe left/right will take a couple seconds per proposal, most of the time (I know exactly how I would respond to all of the proposal I have seen so far without needing do any hard thinking or external research).
Also I think it might be useful for everyone to remember that part of the process this time around is to test the system. The system is built for adjustment between releases, so if anything is onerous or clunky we can fix it next time around.
Programmers have a useful concept of premature optimization, famously called "the root of all evil" by the great Donald Knuth. Worth keeping in mind.
This is exactly what I want to avoid: swiping proposals left and right without enough time for consideration.
We can call it experimental year or not, but there might not be another one again if this experiment fails, which it might do if enough members will feel that their proposals were "swept under the rug" due to rushed decisions.
There is nothing to do here with "premature optimization" - just common sense and desire for this deserving experiment to succeed and to have a good first try, with a final product that most of us would enjoy (and would be able to afford).
Spending only 30 seconds on each proposal is about one-and-half hours commitment of time for the first round. One minute per proposal on average will result in 3 hours.
I know that I will find it extremely difficult to find three hours for this project during any given week in October, and there will probably be others in the same situation.
Of course, I understand that elimination of members who might be too busy for this project is built into the system already: you don't submit - lose membership; don't vote - lose membership, etc.; but don't we want to open this experiment to a wide/broad range of membership and make it possible to succeed by making it fair and possible for all?
Let's assume that you are correct and we each will go through 100+ proposals VERY quickly (I assume that we will still read them): 10 seconds per proposal. Boom, boom, boom... 120 proposals are done in about 15 minutes.
Spend about 5 minutes on average per proposal on the remaining 50 for research and understanding, and here is another 250 minutes!
Completely agree, one week's too short. I'd have no problem with it if I were single, but when you have a family with 2 children on top of work/business you don't get a lot of free time very often. And when you do, your priorities are a bit different. When my 2-year-old takes me by the hand and walks me to his bookshelf so I could read for him after his bathtime, I'm not going to say "sorry bud, I need to go through some book proposals". And on top of all that I still need to find time for regular exercise - 2 years of COVID lockdowns and seclusion took a bit of a toll on my health even though I never caught COVID itself, so skipping exercise is not an option.
>16 abysswalker: swipe left/right will take a couple seconds per proposal
>18 Shadekeep: visceral up-or-down reaction to the titles
I don't think that would be fair to other members - if members are writing 100-word proposals, we owe to each other at least giving each other a chance to sell our proposals. Otherwise we could just submit titles.
>18 Shadekeep: I think the majority here can vote rather quickly on 100+ of them, and then spend time researching those few they don't know
Perhaps Philistines like myself will be a minute minority, but judging by the proposals revealed so far I expect the number of works I don't know or not familiar enough to cast a vote without at least a quick research/consideration to number a bit higher than few. Perhaps that's because I'm neither British nor even a native English speaker, but I'm not familiar with either Abbott or Richard Marsh. And I have only a very shallow idea about what Res Gestae Divi Augusti is. I do like the Classics, and I'm leaning towards proposing one myself, but I'm not necessarily interested in every single work written by the Ancients. Is it boring propaganda or an essential read? Or, perhaps, while being a propaganda piece it's interesting specifically as a piece of propaganda showing what image of Augustus was officially presented to the Romans? I definitely need more than a few seconds to consider this one. And we still have well over a hundred proposals unknown!
Agree, and I fully anticipate to spend more than a minute on quite a few a proposal. One week's too short.
Precisely why I think the long proposal should be given over to explaining/justifying the work proposed rather than extensive production details. Save that for round two if it makes it that far. If I am unfamiliar with a particular work and can't determine if it is worthy of the honor of publication, I surely won't give a hoot for design/production details. Tell my why I should vote for your proposal. After we get the list knocked down to the Ten, THEN we can chew on the design aspects of a proposed work.
For the people who are seeing the commitment to reviewing all the proposals as too much reading, I have to wonder why you are even taking part then. I'm fine with the review period being extended ever how long, but some of the comments here seem to just lean on the mathematics of how much time it's going to take to read them all. No one is forcing you to participate, and it's a simple fact of the process that this many submissions is going to equal a significant outlay of time.
>20 elladan0891: Perhaps Philistines like myself
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. If you have a question about what I mean, ask me, don't play at being my interpreter.
Yes, if I see that the consensus is to favor quickness of decisions rather than study and consideration, I will get out.
One thing to note. The rules state: "All members must vote in at least one round; any who don’t will forfeit their membership." So, whatever the timeline, if the first round proves onerous to anybody, they can opt out of it and retain their membership.
If the first edition is a success, there will certainly be an opportunity for the members to propose and adopt revisions to the process for the second edition.
In the meantime, we are trying to determine the best timeline for the first edition. The rules explicitly did not specify a timeline, because we did not know how many members we would have. Perhaps it would be best to simplify things by taking a poll?
However, let us remember the old adage, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." I really don't want to see this project head down that particular road.
What if the winner of the first edition is Travels in Arabia Deserta?
We'll post the full schedule in the "Rolling Announcements" thread shortly.
However, I hesitate in describing this process as one that is geared towards achieving consensus. Democratic? Representative? Sure. But, voting on an issue, and going with the most popular opinions, is not necessarily a consensus-building approach. It can actually leave a significant amount of disagreement or dissent. Some of this might depend on how much agreement you think there needs to be for consensus to be achieved (e.g., where does consensus lie between unanimous agreement and 50%+1? I don't know).
I'm not suggesting any changes to the process. And I don't know how to try to create a feasible mechanism or level of engagement by which folks could talk through all of their disagreement to reach a consensus. This is just a thought that's been rattling around in my head (particularly as I procrastinate from grading the stack of midterms staring at me), and now it is in your head.
You're out-thinking this and making it unnecessarily complicated. What you are describing is a variant of 'paralysis by analysis'. The problem may be the word or term "consensus" but the process itself is not flawed. It is simple and direct. Instead of attempting to find the mythical consensus you are describing and hoping for, I would rather we direct our collective time and energy toward book selection, book design and choices of paper and typography.
This might well be a moot point, but maybe it’s worth sending an email to the members to point out the very lively and engaged discussions currently taking place on the individual proposal threads?
Edit: nine proposals, not ten.
>43 BorisG: on a different note, I do think BorisG makes an important point. It sounds like a good idea to make salient to people how much the proposals are being shaped and moulded in the discussion threads at this point.
Joking aside, it is curious that the only two proposals not owned up on these boards yet are the two Senecas.
I keep reading things such as “hand made paper”, “original illustrations”, "leather binding”, etc. All wonderful suggestions; however, the current poll suggests that only 52% have voted “yes” as willing to pay more than $500 and only 14% have voted “yes” as willing to pay more that $1,000. (I appreciated that a number of members have voted as undecided, which is understandable given the diversity of the top nine books. However, maybe consider assuming that the winning book will be your number one choice and then adjust your vote accordingly - just to make the results more relevant.)
The ten proposals with the highest approval percentage will go to a second round. Their proposers will have the opportunity to expand upon the long descriptions (max. 1,000 words) and our Advisory Board will weigh in with a short commentary on each regarding cost estimates, craft methods, a judgement on feasibility, etc.
The deadline is the end of day Friday.
...only like every hour.
I expect a formal email notification would be the form of contact as the use of LibraryThing is not a mandatory requirement for Consensus Press membership.
All that being said...I'll still continue to eagerly check this forum, probably several more times today.
Judging by the discussion so far, the Advisory Board members are really digging into the proposals to give the best possible commentary. They're taking the task of estimating costs especially seriously.
So, the comments should be very high quality, but unlikely to be finished much before the deadline.
Because the second ballot is ranked choice, there will be eight tabulations. Ninth place eliminated, and its votes redistributed. Eighth place eliminated, and its votes redistributed. Seventh place eliminated, and its votes redistributed. Etc.
I think the plan is to post the results of each tabulation, one by one as they're calculated...............
Refresh refresh refresh refresh!!!!
"With ranked-choice voting, voters mark their ballots in order of preference – 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, and so on.
All first choices are tallied. If a candidate wins a majority among the first-choice votes, that candidate is the winner.
If not, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. The second choices from those ballots are then added to the remaining candidates. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of the final votes."
I wasn't saying that the calculation will take long! I think it's just going to be run through a program: it's not like Reed will be up all night with his abacus crunching the numbers by candlelight. 😂 Rather, the tabulations might get posted one... by one... by one... by one...
Jokes aside, truly thankful for the time and energy everyone is putting into this process; having something like this to get excited about and look forward to is a real gift.
Also, I enjoyed finally seeing the two Seneca proposals. One of them I quite like.
I wonder if it was the printers on the board taking issue with the pretty specific layout details? Or perhaps those who weren't active on the forum not realizing how much member (and even board member) feedback was already incorporated into the long proposal?
As a collector rather than creator, I also had similar feelings about the feedback on Merlin. But a common thread through the feedback seems to be that at least a couple board members find design concepts based on the text gimmicky in general and would rather see a pretty straightforward presentation of the chosen text.
a common thread through the feedback seems to be that at least a couple board members find design concepts based on the text gimmicky in general and would rather see a pretty straightforward presentation of the chosen text.
though I think it isn't quite right to say they'd prefer a "straightforward" presentation. A design concept which obviously mirrors the text is fairly straightforward. Rather, the board seemed to hesitate on design concepts which "spectacularized" a text and preferred restraint.
As far as I'm concerned (and I didn't contribute to the board comments, just summarized) I think there's a great place for both. I love editions which are heavy-handed in their approach to a text – say, for example, Foolscap's Mandeville , an acknowledged masterpiece – but I also love editions which subtly innovate or defy expectations, like Greenboathouse's Marcus Aurelius which blends east and west so well. Shadekeep: I think your proposal isn't shy about presenting the text with aplomb. Further, it utilizes the shortness of the text to be a little lavish elsewhere. Overall, I think it's a great proposal.
If you use the track pad to horizontally scroll, I suspect you will be able to see all the columns.
I suggest that in the future advisory board's comments are posted under the proposals, not above them. It would be best (at least for me) to read the proposals before reading evaluations of these by the board.
In response to other comments on other threads, I agree with many members that it is best not to change the rules now until the project is completed. And I agree that after this project some things might need to be re-evaluated.
Congratulations again to all the finalists! Very interesting and deserving proposals.
Another suggestion: A summary of each edition on the final screen. I found myself going back and forth through the proposals to recall details while I ranked my choices. Which on mobile was especially cumbersome.
Is it a general email going out to everybody? Or should I reach out to the administrators to check my ballot has been received?
>1 consensuspress: On that note about the reminder email though, can you please confirm the exact date/time that votes must be in. The recent email claims that:
"Only five days remain to submit your ballot in our second round of voting!"I received the email this morning (November 28, 2022) so that would mean that ballots are due December 2, 2022 according to this?
Day 1: Nov 28
Day 2: Nov 29
Day 3: Nov 30
Day 4: Dec 1
Day 5: Dec 2
However, the members area of the Consensus Press website states:
"All members must vote in at least one round. Deadline: 1 December 2022."
Hopefully nobody is leaving this until the eve that the voting ends anyhow, but for clarity, it would be good to confirm the official end date if possible.
I recall that at least some of the proposers (I'm looking at you >98 Shadekeep:) said to have gone close to the wire for submitting so perhaps some people will be cutting it close for voting too.
I think four versus five days may be due to differences in time zones and Squarespace's "optimized sending," whereby they send the email at what they perceive to be the best time for the recipient.
The email was sent to the full membership. We have no ability to email only members who have not yet submitted their ballots.
It's also worth staying that "Management" doesn't really have clear decision-making powers here. This is very much a libertarian experiment. I'm not sure we want a system where Reed or Adam or whoever is manning the Consensus Press email account that day can disqualify proposals or ballots or what have you. Or, maybe we do! Definitely something to be worked out if CP makes it to a second edition.
Which is of course not related at all to the question of whether or not the 100-word rule should be enforced.
If Consensus Press continues with a second edition though, it would be great to have a submission form for ideas / suggestions to be distributed and put to a vote ahead of the next round of proposals.
Then what's the point of proposal write-ups? Just let people throw in titles.
If we have proposals and they are limited in length (and they should be limited in the first round at least), then we should enforce the limits.
Is it really a coincidence that our first book will be the one with the longest initial proposal at over 2.6 times the word limit? Are we certain Flowers for Algernon would have made it to the top 9 if oracle had to cut down the initial proposal by almost two thirds? We'll never know.
I think it's too late to do anything about it right now, but I strongly suggest we do something so it will not happen again. I refuse to waste my time trying to play by the rules if the rules are really "optional", wink-wink. I'll buy Flowers this time, but if the rules are not enforced in the future, I'll quit.
Having said that… I like the idea of only the first 100 words being presented to the members for voting (if we decide to keep the 100-word rule) – knowing this would probably do wonders for keeping the proposals at that word limit!
I was totally unaware of the 100-word limit on the initial proposal and no one from the Consensus Press board notified me, requesting that I pare it down. Rather than don sackcloth and ashes, I propose the following:
If 'Flowers for Algernon' is the CP winner AND the appropriate copyright rights are obtained, I will forego the winner's free copy and purchase my copy with the other CP members. Hopefully, the content rather than the length of the proposal was responsible for the favorable response.
Congratulations on your win and your deserving proposal!
I wonder, if your proposal does go though with the copyright and you generously purchase your own copy No. 1, if the free copy could go to Glacierman - the author of the runner up proposal. He mentioned somewhere that if his proposal does not win he would not be able to purchase the first Consensus Press edition.
That is a sterling idea. However, I will leave that up to the Consensus Press Board but it certainly has my blessing.
(Though I realized nobody asked) my opinion on the matter is that you (dlphcoracl) should in no way feel guilted or obligated to pay for your own copy. As per the Consensus Press rules, as victor, yours is gratis.
Even though there has been chatter from some members voicing displeasure with an exceeded word count in Round 1, I feel it actually sours our process if dlphcoracl as the victor feels even a tinge of guilt. Irrespective of whether or not anybody overlooked the word count "requirement" in Round 1, as mentioned by others (eg. >116 grifgon:), nobody was upset enough at the time to request that consequences from such a deviation be put to a vote.
Like some other members, I worked hard to cut my proposal down to a maximum of 100 words, but I'm in no way bitter towards anyone who ended up with more than 100 words. I just thought it a fun exercise. I was actually more miffed at the Round 1 proposals that weren't really proposals at all -- some people's input amounted to something not much more than "I like BLANK genre of books." (not an actual quote)
Anyhow, clearly many people appreciated the insights in the Oracle's proposals (both in Round 1 and Round 2) otherwise it would not have received so many votes. In Round 1, like some members, I know that I put heavy weight on the title of a proposal, but for titles I could see myself wanting to read, the other aspect I considered was, "Do I think the person behind this proposal is showing competence in being able to go through the process that will be required for Round 2?" Essentially like what >118 BorisG: mentioned, I also don't think an extra bit of length in Round 1 added that much sway for or against any proposal. I also believe that if the Oracle had put in a 100 word proposal in Round 1, it would've been just as convincing.
--- --- ---
Getting back to the point of the topic, I'll reiterate that I don't feel like the victor (for this year or any year) should feel bad. Nobody cheated here. The whole point of our Press is that we're essentially self-regulating.
If dlphcoracl wants to purchase a copy of the book, I'd suggest the following mentality:
(1) The Oracle's copy is gratis as it should be.--- --- ---
(2) As an incredibly gentlemanly gesture, dlphcoracl certainly could purchase a copy for Glacierman, our runner up, as a gift. dlphcoracl: I believe that should be your sole decision without pressure from any other members. I do not think that it needs to go to any sort of vote.
(3) Every member who wants to continue with the Press should come to terms that we had a successful process and elected a book. (To echo some other members, bravo to us to have achieved what we did so far in our fragile experiment. If we want to make changes in future years, then that's an encore bravo to us for trying to improve our process over time!)
Again, this is just me poking my nose in where nobody asked for my opinion, but I guess that's kind of what we do here anyhow. Thanks for patiently reading my thoughts.
Your point that no one was “upset” enough at the time is unfair. I was one of the people testing the initial votes, and I sent my strong feelings at the time.
I think that this years process worked well in many ways, my one big gripe is that the word counts weren’t adhered to (and Algernon wasn’t the only one to go over). However next year this is a change that should be made, or the word count should not be specified.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind at all if the free copy goes to the runner-up proposal (Glacierman). First and foremost, the overriding goal of the Consensus Press should be to please all CP members and put a wonderful private press book in everyone's hands.
Well done to ALL of the other proposals as well. A lot of work has gone into this and I can honestly say that there are no books I wouldn't have wanted. This is only the first edition and I am looking forward to much success for the press and a wide variety of books in the coming years.
Congrats again, it is all very exciting
Yah, but that means not taking part in the consensus. Which is basically where I was heading with this. It might not be the right kind of setup for me.
One other thing I would put on the table for the next round is that the comments from the board on the final proposals would have been useful to have in advance. There are a lot of compromises I would have happily made in my own proposal based on those comments, and as a result mine was flagged as too specific and costly when in reality there are plenty of changes I would have been fine with.
While I agree that from the perspective of the submitter this would be nice, practically speaking doing so would be high cost in terms of utilizing expertise. As someone who has had similar feelings regularly in the process of submitting academic papers for peer review, the problem is that expecting low-latency back and forth with reviewers requires a lot of time and direct engagement on their part. In the academic review system (which admittedly has lots of unrelated problems), it is incumbent upon the submitter to craft the best submission prior to feedback, potential rejection, and invitation for revision. While the system here does not map perfectly one to one, the problem of expertise resource allocation is almost identical.
(This is also why, generally speaking, professionals such as doctors guard their attention strictly, and, for example, one can't just instant message a doctor any time one feels like it, lacking some personal connection.)
If the board wanted to be more generous with their time, I could imagine something like a two phase comment procedure, where there is a soft deadline after which some initial feedback could be provided prior to the formal comments used for second stage voting, but that would add one more step to the process and obviously would require more work on their part.
FWIW though, figured I'd pass on some thoughts for how we approach the second edition having learned from the first...
1. If there's a word limit on proposals; truncate to meet that word limit. I'm not suggesting this mattered AT ALL for this year's winner, but it just seems like such a silly/easy and unambiguous rule to enforce.
2. Board commentary should probably go at the end of the proposal; the most important thing should be the hard work members put into to their proposal, so just wanna maximize those being read
3. We can decide that we WANT the board to have outsized influence on voting, but assuming we do NOT want this, then I'd suggest: Board commentary prob needs to be framed as objectively as possible; and read less like an endorsement. Proposals deemed to be "gimmicky" felt like the board putting their finger a bit too much on the scale. Or in some cases the board seemed to proactively suggest refinements and then deem the proposal "feasible"; whereas in others no adjustments by the board were made and the proposal was left as "risky" due to a given feature. As much as possible, pricing estimates should follow a similar format/range -- if I recall, some read like "less than $800" while others were noted as "$500+".
All of that is easier said than done! And like I said, I'm truly impressed by how well executed this entire experiment has been; way better than I could have imagined -- and the winner is a perfect first edition. But, just throwing my feedback in there for refinement as we go to hopefully continually get even better.
While I think keeping board comments completely objective ( i.e. only on cost and feasibility) is fine, it strikes me as a missed opportunity. On the board we have several celebrated bookmakers. If book designers with decades of experience, who have won major book design awards aplenty, think that proposed book's design is X (be it "gimmicky" or "over-the-top" or "tasteful" or "meek"), why not let the members know it? Ultimately, its up to the members whether to listen to the Advisory Board or not.
I think the price estimates were exactly what they needed to be. "Less than $800" versus "$500+" isn't an arbitrary distinction. The proposal which was "less than $800" contained no elements which could cause runaway expense. At most, it would be $800, and could be done for less. On the other hand, the "$500+" proposal contained uncertain elements which could have gone into the stratosphere. The book could have been done at its most economical at around $500, but also could have been done lavishly at $5,000. The variable format of price estimates are entirely due to the variability of the proposals.
I’m still torn on the “expert commentary” part though. I agree it’s an amazing opportunity (I’d personally love to learn from such pros), but worry it goes against the *purpose* of CP being a democratic/concensus system. Almost feels like at the 11th hour a few Michelin restaurant reviewers show up and start awarding stars… and then poll the crowd for where they want to eat. I don’t blame the crowd for immediately filing into the Michelin restaurant, but that means they weren’t _really_ the ones making the decision.
(Ooof that metaphor might have gone off the rails, hopefully not too absurd)
Äänestys: Would you want a reduction in the amount of input from the board next year?
However, I also think we will get some useful context once we have gone through the full process of the first edition, and see how rigid the second round proposal is actually followed in practice, and how naturally it is able to evolve to best suit the membership (and in particular avoid significant spend on less appreciated features).
For example, specifying a page size in inches/cm is very restrictive and may not be possible to due the size of the sheet of the paper specified. It would be better to say octavo (8vo), quarto, etc. That can be done easily regardless of the sheet size, as it refers to the number of times the sheet is folded, not a specific size in inches/centimeters.
There are other niggling details that may have a major impact on feasibility of a project. I specified hand sewn end bands because that would be a marvelous effect. HOWEVER, I failed to think that through, as it was brought to my attention that such a requirement would severely limit the number of binderies capable of that fine touch and at the same time, jump the cost up considerably. So, ultimately, I indicated I was flexible on that and would be willing to go with quality machine-made bands.
The advisory committee is there to advise us. Let's use them to the max for that purpose.
1. Flowers For Algernon ($300 – $600)
2. The Tale of Sinuhe ($300 – $600)
3. The Narrow Road to the Deep North ($500 – SKY)
4. The Life of Merlin ($500 – $1000)
5. Letters from a Stoic $300 – $600)
6: The Voyage of Máel Dúin's Boat ($400 – $800)
7. On the Shortness of Life ($500 – $1000)
8. A Canticle for Leibowitz (>$1,000)
9. A Canticle for Leibowitz (>$2,000)
I was open to spend a lot of money for something that I *really* wanted, but if something was just a passing interest I tended to rate it higher if it was cheaper. Makes me think an interesting approach for future years would be to have the option to propose multiple variants of a given work. Say, something like a less than $500 version paired with a more than $500 option. A member could purchase either, similar to the model Arion uses?
A Canticle for Leibowitz*
Bashō - The Narrow Road to the Deep North
A Flower for Algernon
The Remains of the Day
On the Shortness of Life
The Tale of Sinuhe
The Name of the Rose
Letters From a Stoic
The Life of Merlin
The Voyage of Máel Dúin's Boat
Then three of the five traditional titles were dropped before the second round due to copyright issues, and one* of the two remaining was basically disqualified by costs. So folks who were inclined to vote traditional were left with one pick, while the eclectic voters were split over several. Not saying that voting occurred in such binary terms, but rather that there could have been a contributory trend regarding preferences.
* This one title was actually two proposals, but both were flagged as expensive, and one version was labeled by the board as practically undoable.
Join to post