Something like this would be good. We could modify my suggested rule to say that once someone loses “eligibility” they have to vote x times in a row before they can regain full elegibility. So if someone misses a vote, we’re not required to wait for them for the next x turns. We have to be careful about making x to big because we don’t want a situation where everyone has become ineligible which would mean we wouldn’t have to wait for anyone before saying that voting is concluded!
If we wanted to we could also modify it to say that we will wait no more than 2 hours (or 10 minutes, or whatever) for them, rather than not waiting at all.
I’ll have to think about how it could be reworded. Anyone else is welcome to take a stab at it.
Shade, I think that’s way way too short, and would needlessly penalize those who can’t check every day. I’d vote against anything with a 24-hour or less time period involved. I think 72-96 hours is the time frame we should be looking at, as it gives people the freedom to do things like leave town for a weekend, observe religious holidays, get a life for a day :), etc.
I was trying to cater to both those who want to say ‘Don’t do anything without me,’ and ‘Get on with it, don’t wait.’ Not to mention ‘What? Oh yeah, Nomic.’
For instance Zev said he didn’t mind not voting every turn if he couldn’t make it. I also would rather the game went on.
If you want to make sure you can vote you can request the full (3 day?) time, but I didn’t know if that was necessary for someone who wasn’t really bothered.
{{Current Rule 203 text for reference:
A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require only a simple majority. }}
Proposal 305:
To change the text of Rule 203 to read as follows:
A rule-change is considered adopted with a simple majority vote of all registered players. At the moment of a simple majority being reached, it is the Proposer’s decision, in eir sole discretion, whether to wait for the remaining players to vote, or to close the voting and continue with the game.
Nice idea, Mikie. I like it. But wouldn’t this conflict with 303 (and since 303 will have a lower number, it [requiring that everyone vote] would take precedence [as per 211])?
Of course, this is solvable by providing a line that says that this rule supercedes 211 in this respect.
Per Rule 111, I am submitting an amendment to Prop 305:
Amended Proposal 305:
To change the text of Rule 203 to read as follows:
A rule-change is considered adopted with a simple majority vote of all registered players. At the moment of a simple majority being reached, it is the Proposer’s decision, in eir sole discretion, whether to wait for the remaining players to vote, or to close the voting and continue with the game. This rule shall supercede Rule 303.
Shade,
" A rule-change is considered adopted with a simple majority vote of all registered players [. . .]"
Thus it must be more than half of everyone registered (you can’t go “ok, three people voted, 2:1, so vote’s over!”)
Is that the question?
I had the same thought at first and then realized that this implicitly gives the answer.
I vote for the amended version, if the voting is continuing.
If not, I vote yes again…