Achernar, let us suppose that a proposal is made, and heated debate ensues for 35 hours. Then I have to take my fiancee to the hospital and that lasts 61 minutes. Under your proposed proposal I wouldn’t be allowed to vote. And if debate lasted 36 hours nobody would be allowed to vote. I don’t think that’s as fair as saying “If a player has not voted X hours after debate on the proposal is concluded, that player loses voting eligibility for that proposal”.
I think 24 hours is too short. I don’t know if I’d vote for that. Here is a revised version that I think will satisfy everyone so far, although the numbers themselves can be changed:
At the time that a vote on a proposal is called for, every player is an eligible voter. If a player lost their eligibility status last round, and they have not voted 12 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status. If any player has not voted 36 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status. This rule supercedes Rule 207 where they conflict.
I think that 24 hours would actually limit the number of turns for some players. Some people may only have internet access from work or not have access (or have the time to access) every day for other reasons. Some of us have lives. I can usually check every day but there may be circumstances several times a month that could prevent it. 48 hours seems reasonable to me. I think that most votes would probably be concluded within a shorter time period but it allows for occasional circumstances that may keep someone away for more than a day.
I agree that 24 hours is reasonable.
Rather than a rule stating a maximum amount of players, perhaps better would be a rule requiring a majority vote on a new player. That way, we can determine whether to accept a new player based on current circumstances, and we can keep out the riff-raff. That was a joke, OK? :rolleyes:
On preview, I see I am in the minority on the 24 hour thing. C’est la vie.
Achernar,
I like that. It does the same sort of thing that I was trying to do but is more succint. It also gives everybody at least 12 hours. The only problem I can see is that if people disappear from the game, we’ll constantly be stuck with waiting 12 hours even when everyone else has voted. Maybe in addition to what you said, if they miss x votes they become ineligible until they vote on a proposal before voting has concluded. That way we can ignore constant no-shows until they return (if ever). Either that or they are dropped from the game and must rejoin.
It seems easy to me to construct it such that if someone misses S voting opportunities, they aren’t to be considered re: waiting for all votes to come in until they actually vote in something. So if someone is away for two weeks we won’t be stalled out every time a vote comes around.
Right then. One more try:
At the time that a vote on a proposal is called for, every player who has been heard from in the past 72 hours is an eligible voter. If a player lost their eligibility status last round, and they have not voted 12 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status. If any player has not voted 36 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status. This rule supercedes Rule 207 where they conflict.
How about adding something that would allow for someone to ask for a 6 or 12 hour extension to their deadline?
Hey! I’m back!
Thanks so much everyone for placing me on standby. Y’all are good people. Had a good time at the beach, but you know I didn’t do much except plan out new proposals in my head and calculate point estimates.
If this matters at this point, I vote YES on prop 303 (LOL for Achernar). Seems pretty sexy anyway, which is good enough for me.
Whoops! And especially LOL for iampunha!
Ah, that reminds me. iampunha gets +12 points, right?
“heard from” is a little to vague. It could lead to a type of fillibustering. For example, someone could qualify as being “heard from” simply by posting something like:
“If you guys keep proposing crap like this then I’m just gonna keep making you wait 36 hours before I vote no.”
So? If somebody wanted to be a jerk and delay the game as much as possible, they could just wait until the last minute to vote, and never lose their eligibility. This could happen under your system as well.
Achernar,
I wasn’t arguing in favor of my system. I think that your idea is closer to what we need, just not perfect. I didn’t state the problem well. Of course a malicious person could gum up the works no matter what we do. But I think that we need to make it as difficult as possible. With the current proposal a person could perenially hold things up just by posting something once every 3 days. I think that might be making it too easy. If we can fix it we should but I don’t really have any major objections and if everyone else wants it I probably would vote for it.
Yeah… I don’t see how we can restrict filibustering for 48 hours but allow deliberation for 48 hours. If you have any ideas, that’s fine by me.
I also think that this proposal doesn’t need to be perfect before we vote on it, because we can change it later. As long as it doesn’t mess up the game.
Actually, I think the real problem is that it contains a contradiction. How about this:
At the time that a vote on a proposal is called for, every player who has been heard from in the past 72 hours is an eligible voter. If a player lost their eligibility status last round, and they have not voted 12 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status even if the have been heard from in the last 72 hours. If any player has not voted 36 hours after this time, they lose their eligibility status even if the have been heard from in the last 72 hours. This rule supercedes Rule 207 where they conflict.
That seems to me to effectively contain a proviso for “nyah nyah I’m here but I’m not voting!” wads.
Gotcha. One question about this part, though…
Is the “36 hours after this time” phrase in this paragraph referring to 36 hours after the proposal vote is called for, or to 36 hours after the original 12 hour window? Just for clarification (and to show that I actually am following this insanely complicated thread).
Treviathan,
I think the 36 hours is after the 12 hour period thus adding up to 48 hours. But the original proposal was Achernar’s so he should be the one to answer your question.
Let’s try some simplification.
“When a rule change is Officially Proposed by a player, a Call For Votes shall be in effect. Any eligible player who does not cast a vote within 72 hours of this Call For Votes shall hereby have cast an abstaining vote, and play shall continue forthwith.”
Yes, it means that every proposal may take 3 days to be voted on, but it also clears up all the other garbage about ‘being heard from’ etc.
Thoughts?