Mikie,
That pretty much takes us back where we started and includes the problem we’re trying to eliminate. You say that every proposal may take 3 days to be voted on. The problem is that as soon as some players start getting bored and stop playing every proposal will take 3 days as we are forced to wait for players we know will never show up. I think that Achernar’s proposal, with my slight modifications, achieves what we want. I see no reason to abandon the attempt to find a solution when we apparently have found a solution.
Yes. I see that now.
My only excuse being that I haven’t had lunch and my blood sugar could be low.
Carry on.
Fudge. I was clearly wrong about the rules being re-numbered and Achernar read the rules better than I did. So 105 is 303 now.
Time period aside, I kind of like Mikie’s simplification - the proposal was already getting near impossible to parse. If you are going to add phrases like “has been heard from” and “lost their eligibility status” in a proposal you must also explicity define those terms.
And I am with the (majority?) that thinks 24 hours is way too quick a turnaround.
24 hours from the time the proposal is made or discussion/debate/amendments are concluded?
Hmm. What if I take Mikie’s last rule:
“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.”
And add this to the end.
“Any player who fails to cast a vote shall not be permitted to vote in the following round. Once the penalty round has passed, and the player has acknowledged via email or the SDMB that he is ready to continue play, he will immediately be eligable to vote once again. Failure to signal readiness will result in another penalty round levied against the player.”
That means any player who wants to be a pain and slow down the game would only be able to do so every other round. It would also prod everyone to keep up with the game. Requiring the player to post that he’s ready to start play again would prevent a huge lag if someone gets frustrated and drops out completely.
I’d be willing to have a longer turnaround period if we added this in. In the long run I think the game would move faster.
Johnny Bravo, let us assume that debate takes 72 hours and one minute. Nobody would be eligible to vote. That’s the problem with this.
People shouldn’t debate so much, then!
No. The period (72, 48, 24, whatever) should start after the proposer calls for votes, which means that debate is over. So it would be 72 (or whatever) hours after debate has ended.
That’s exactly what I’m saying, davidm. But the language “72 hours within the time the proposal is issued” (paraphrased, of course) leaves no room for length of debate". However, “72 hours after the proposal is finalized” (again, paraphrased) means that debate could go on all week and noody would be ineligible to vote.
Well, we could do what we’re doing now. Have the debate before the Proposal is made.
davidm, I don’t think that my previous suggestion had the contradiction that you think it had. The 72 hours thing only applies when the vote is called for. At least, that’s what I meant for it to say. Check it out:
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 supersedes Rule 207 where they conflict.
How about something allowing a player to become eligible again? By the look of it, it seems that once somebody becomes ineligible they can’t get it back. How about inserting something along the lines of:
“A player may become eligible again by voting for a proposal within the valid timespan for accepting votes to that proposal. The player becomes eligible one picosecond before the vote is made, thus this vote is valid. This vote is proof of a player’s eligibility at the time the vote was made.”
This allows someone to get back into the game by voting within an acceptible vote period.
If you want to rephrase it, that’s fine with me, but I don’t see where you get that idea. If a player says anything, then they’re eligible for any vote for the next 72 hours, at least at first.
Well, here’s how I see it:
Player1 says something. For the next 72 hours, he’s eligible.
72 hours pass. Player1 becomes ineligible.
Player2 proposes a rule.
Before voting ends (but after it begins), Player1 pops in and votes. However, Player1 is ineligible, so this vote doesn’t count. For the next 72 hours afterwards he is elgible - he just wasn’t eligible at the time he made the vote, so that vote is invalid.
Yeah, you’re right. I was assuming that we’d have a vote at least once every 72 hours.
Why don’t you rewrite the suggested proposal?
Okay, here’s a rough draft, with full annotated style:
"When a vote is called for, all players who have been heard from within the past 72 hours are eligible voters. All other players are considered ineligible.
A voting period does not end until either all eligible players have voted or the time period for votes has passed since voting began. During this time:
- An ineligible player may become eligible by stating intent to vote within the current open voting period. This player is then considered eligible for the current voting period.
- An ineligible player may become eligible by voting in a currently open voting session. By submitting a vote, the player has stated the intention to vote and thus the vote is valid.
This rule supercedes Rule 207 should they come into conflict."
That’s good, but it doesn’t state what the time period is. I also have a thing for concise rules. How about this:
When a vote is called for, all players who voted last turn, or who have been heard from in the past 72 hours, are eligible voters; all others are ineligible. During the voting period, an ineligible player is automatically made eligible if they vote or state their intention to vote. (A vote cast in such a manner is valid.) If, at any time, all eligible voters have cast their votes, the voting period ends. The voting period ends 48 hours after the vote is called for, if it has not already ended. This rule supersedes rule 207 should they conflict.
I figure we could specify the time period in another rule. If we want to change the length of that period, we can change that rule instead of this more complicated one.
I like that idea, except that the time period is more important for keeping the game running than this eligible-ineligible stuff. So if we’re going to do it in two separate rules, I think we should do that one first.
Oh, and let’s change a phrase to “heard from WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE GAME”.
That eliminates the potential for a ‘this player’s ignoring the game and my emails but has been seen posting in GQ so we can’t end voting for another two days yet’ scenario.
So, to sum up:
"When a vote is called for, all players who have been heard from within the confines of the game within the past 72 hours are eligible voters. All other players are considered ineligible.
A voting period does not end until either all eligible players have voted or the time period for votes has passed since voting began. The time period for votes is 72 hours and one minute from the posting of the proposal. During this time:
- An ineligible player may become eligible by stating intent to vote within the current open voting period. This player is then considered eligible for the current voting period.
- An ineligible player may become eligible by voting in a currently open voting session. By submitting a vote, the player has stated the intention to vote and thus the vote is valid.
- After all eligible players have voted or the time period has passed, the voting period is closed.
This rule supercedes Rule 207 should they come into conflict."
I put 72:01 as an upper bound in case a player proposes but doesn’t vote. That way the player is considered ineligible for the next vote if he isn’t heard from(WTCOTG).
That’s pretty good, but I think that 72 hours is too long for the voting period. 36-48 is a good compromise, IMO.
This doesn’t change the meaning of what you’re saying, but I think it’s a little redundant: “A voting period does not end until either all eligible players have voted or the time period for votes has passed since voting began.” and “3. After all eligible players have voted or the time period has passed, the voting period is closed.”
Also “An ineligible player may become eligible by stating intent to vote within the current open voting period. This player is then considered eligible for the current voting period.” I mean, if they’re eligible, they’re considered eligible, right?