PS. Or the deadline could be extended by a majority vote of the players having voted that turn.
Oh, and if my joining is acnowledged before turn 304 is over, I vote No, not that it makes any difference. I thought the rule was a good attempt, and would have passed it just to get some time limit imposed, but I think the period may be too long, and the penalty unnecesary (not waiting for them is reasonable, but if they do turn up I think they should be able to vote.).
Speaking of missing out due to unforseen circumstances…
I’ve gotten some worrying messages that my hard drive’s about to fail, so I’m posting this from a different machine. However, I won’t be able to check this thread regularly until my new one comes in. So here’s what I’ll do:
Until I check back into this thread, consider me as voting YES on every issue that comes up - I’ll trust other people to shoot down the proposals that don’t work. I also vote for playing to recommence after Judgements. In the unlikely event that my own turn comes up before I come back, here’s my time-waster of a proposal:
“Proposal ###: Every player eligible for voting this turn has voted YES for this proposal.”
I shall (hopefully) return.
-BS
Status update: We’re just waiting on one more vote on 304 before proceeding. You might want to start getting Prop 305 together Mikie…
Zev Steinhardt
I see we are waiting for a vote from TJDude. I won’t be back until late tonight (about 8 or 9 pm Pacific time) and i will post my proposal at that time (if e’s voted by then).
Just FYI.
If e hasn’t you can still post a rough draft to see what sort of response you get…
Zev Steinhardt
Here is what I have come up with (so far) for the next proposal (please note this is NOT the Official Proposal; feel free to debate).
When a rule change is Officially Proposed by a player, a Call For Votes shall be in effect. This voting period shall last the lesser of A) 96 hours, or B) when all eligible players have voted. At the end of the Voting Period, any eligible player who has not cast a vote shall be considered an ineligible voter for that Proposal.
Immeidately upon passage or defeat of the above-mentioned Proposal, the game shall continue.
Thoughts? Comments? Pie?
Proposal 305 - All players who usernames begin with a “B” agree to buy all other players pizza. This is an immutable rule.
Remember the precedence clause. Otherwise your rule won’t change anything.
I’d favor a shorter time period, perhaps 72 hours. I mean, only a massive electrical blackout or something could possibly prevent us from checking our e-mail once every three days, and how likely is that?
I know, and so would I, but as zev pointed out earlier, he sometimes is unable to get online for a full 72 hours due to religious reasons.*
So, I am trying to err on the side of caution.
*zev, correct me if I interpreted this incorrectly.
How’s this?
When a rule change is Officially Proposed by a player, a Call For Votes shall be in effect. This voting period shall last the lesser of A) 96 hours, or B) when all eligible players have voted. At the end of the Voting Period, any eligible player who has not cast a vote shall be considered an ineligible voter for that Proposal.
Immeidately upon passage or defeat of the above-mentioned Proposal, the game shall continue.
This Rule shall take precedence over any other Rule, Mutable or Immutable, other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
I’m doubtful - we’ll still have to wait 96h every time assuming at least one person is unavailable. Do we insist absolutely everyone gets every chance to vote?
How about a shorter period of voting, say 24h, except where someone specifically requests an extension upto a max of 96h?
Then if Zev or someone knows he is going to be away for 3 days, and doesn’t want anything sneaky passed behind his back he can request we wait, but we don’t wait 96h every time.
Also, I’m somewhat disturbed by Mikie’s rule claiming to take precedence over immutable rules… is this bit void until it’s transmuted? Or does a judge have to decide? I feel that since several, immutable, existing rules say it can’t, they should take precedence, but is it entirely up to a judge’s discresion? I should have studied some other games before playing…
A mutable rule cannot take precedence over an immutable rule. Should correct that lest someone makes a rule repealing all rules which conflict. 
I believe a rule has to specifically state by number what rules it’s taking precedence over.
How about something like creating one time limit for players who voted in the most recent previous proposal (ie active players) and a shorter time limit for other players (ie players who dropped out or new players just starting).
Another possibility is losing the unanimous voting rules. Maybe we should be working on some kind of quoram system instead of focusing on time limits.
Why is no one even discussing the proposal in my last post? I think it solves the problem nicely. Do you see problems with it that I’m not seeing? Isn’t it clear? If someone misses a vote, we don’t have to wait for them on the next vote, but we’ll accept their vote if they get it in before everyone else has voted.
As an example:
-
Player A makes a proposal.
-
Player Z fails to vote within the allowed time period.
-
The votes that got in on time are counted and the proposal passes or fails. Player Z is now “ineligible”.
-
Player B makes a proposal.
Two things can occur at this point. I’ll label them ‘a’ and ‘b’.
5a. Everyone except Z votes.
6a. Even though the time period isn’t up, the votes are counted and the proposal passes or fails. Z is still “ineligible” and is treated the same on the next proposal.
OR
5b. Everyone votes. Z’s vote is cast before 1 or more of the eligible players cast their vote.
6b. All votes are counted, including Z’s and the proposal passes or fails. Z is now “eligible” to vote on the next proposal.
Davidm’s suggested rule does appear to solve the non-voting problem. And as a bonus, I think it would cover the problem of people not making a proposal when their turn arrives.
davidm, IMHO it solves the problem of people who never vote perfectly; however, 2 or 3 people who vote half the time (eg. Zev for religious reasons) will keep us waiting the full 48 hours every turn.
I would vote for it if it was proposed this turn as it’s better than what we have.
How about you combine it with my suggestion, such that the time limit is shorter (maybe even a few hours, or maybe a day) but can be extended if someone specifically requests?
Or someone voting makes them eligible for that turn only, to become eligible for every turn they need ot vote in 3 in a row?
TJdude825 has voted YES on Prop 304. However, since 304 required uninamity, the proposal is DEFEATED. I will update the site later to reflect this. In the meantime, Mikie, you can make Proposition 305 whenever you’re ready.
Zev Steinhardt
BTW, I don’t mind missing a vote, even if required for religious reasons. I’m not expecting everyone to wait just for me when I’m not available. However, I didn’t want to be penalized by missing the next vote too. That was my reasoning behind my NO vote on 304. But you don’t have to craft the next proposal on the subject around me. The only way I would be forced to miss three days in a row is if a holiday came out on a Thursay-Friday or on a Sunday-Monday. That’s not scheduled to happen again until Rosh HaShannah 2004.
Zev Steinhardt