Amendment of Rule 305. (new text in red)
Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must may participate in every vote on rule-changes.
A vote on rule changes may be closed before all players have voted, at the discretion of the player proposing it; however, every vote on rule changes must be open for a minimum of 48 hours. Players who have not yet voted when the vote is closed will be considered to have abstained.
ctmf, is there a reason why your proposal lets the players whose turn it is decide when voting is done? It seems that it would be better to set a hard time limit, which would prevent players from holding up the game if they needed one more positive vote and were willing to wait a day or two for it.
I didn't want to add one more thing to argue about (max time limit). If the proposing player wants to wait for the remaining players - maybe he thinks his score will improve, or the result will reverse - he can.
We're at least no worse off than we are right now, where we're required to wait for everybody.
If the proposing player gets ridiculous waiting, we can have a judge declare the vote closed, but I don't think that will be a problem. I was going to put language in about the judge's ability to close it, but it just made it (I feel) unnecessarily complicated and hard to read.
I could put in ...at the discretion of the player proposing it or by declaration of a judgement;...
I just didn't want to leave it possible for any random player to declare the vote closed if the proposing player had a legit reason to wait. So far in the game, the proposing player has been among the first to want to close it and move on anyway.
It's actually in the proposer's best interest to close the vote as soon as possible after a clear decision has been reached, pass or fail. Everyone after that is either just going to vote no to minimize his score, or spoil the unanimity (until that requirement changes). I can't think of any good reason I'd want to wait very long.
Could you give an example of a legit reason to wait to close voting? Why do we need to give that power to the proposing player? The current rules don't allow the proposing player to declare the vote over.
I don't really see the problem with having a set voting period. I'm not suggesting that any random player can declare the vote closed; I'm suggesting that the vote closes, without any declaration, after 48 hours.
Someone has to edit the vote thread to disallow further votes, tally the results and post them, and edit the rule set as applicable. Since the proposing player has to calculate points anyway, and since Rule 111 and 202 imply that the proposing player is in control of the turn, it may as well be that player. In reality, the player already has to calculate his own points, and the game can't move on until he does that. He could still hold the game up if that was his intention.
Also, Rule 111 can be read in such a way to give this power to the proposing player already anyway.
Is that "time to (end debate) and (vote)" or "time to end (debate and vote)"?
Ultimately, I don't think it would hurt anything your way - the reason I don't add that, is because I think there are people who would vote no if it were a hard max limit. I could be wrong. We'll see from this thread, I guess.
Also, Rule 111 can be read in such a way to give this power to the proposing player already anyway.
In the context of the rest of rule 111 (which is all about debate), I think your reading is stretching pretty far.
In any case, as long as the possibility of a hard time limit is on the table, I'm happy. Let's hear what others think.
I like this a lot and will vote yes.
I'd vote for this. I'm also in favor of an upper limit; ssg makes some good points.
I would vote for this.
Please change it to 24 or 36. Minimum 2 days voting bites, our game is able to move at a brisker pace with the current player pool.
I'll really have to say no to 48.
AAA: Let's go with 48 for now; bear in mind that historically shelleycat will veto anything that is less than 48 hours, so if you're hung up on that this has no route to passing. Moreover, 48 hours is still a LOT faster than we've managed so far :)
I agree it's not ideal, but it's (as always) a step in the right direction.
No, to me forcing a minimum two day vote is not a step in the right direction. This will not fly.
At least alter it so that voting can be closed if all players have voted. The way it's written now we'd have to sit around and wait even if everyone voted in the first five minutes.
Oops, I had missed that this does not allow a vote to be closed in less than 48 hours even if all players had voted. Given that I'd vote against this too.
However, I'd also be opposed to anything shorter than 48 hours in cases where all players have not yet voted.
if everyone votes it should close early
I will vote for this as it stands, though an amendment that adds , unless all players have voted, makes sense.
I think there are good practical reasons why less than 48 hours won't work. Given that some players won't be able to do anything during working hours, it can mean, in practice, a lot less than the minimum period. With a 24 hour limit there would be times when a players in a different time zone to the poster will only have the couple of hours immediately after the proposal, and the same before the close of vote, to act. 48 hours always gives a clear day/evening with some leeway either side, regardless of when things are posted.
I support this current version.
Turn 308 begins now. The official discussion period begins now and will continue for a "reasonable time" per Rule 111.
I like some of the suggestions so far, so in the next comment I will post a modified version for further discussion.
With unanimous support required, I'm going for the smallest incremental change to the rules (in the direction I want to go) as I can come up with. I think it's important to see this proposal as establishing that there should be a time limit for votes and not focus on what the exact number is yet. The very next proposal could be to amend the 48 hours to 24, or 72, or whatever. That's fine. That way people can focus on the number without killing the whole idea of having a limit.
I cannot (and I don't think anyone can) pick a number that will please everyone right now. I don't think that's worth sacrificing the benefits of having one at this point. My default 48 hours is still faster than any turn has gone so far, and this proposal allows us to move on without kicking players out of the game.
So is it everything you could have hoped for? Probably not. Me either. It's better, though, than what we have now. Little by little, we'll get there.
Correction: barring objection, turn 308 begins now.
308 (Rev. 1): Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter may participate in every vote on rule-changes.
A vote on rule changes may be closed before all players have voted, at the discretion of the player proposing it; however, every vote on rule changes must be open for a minimum of 48 hours unless every player has voted or explicitly abstained. Players who have not yet voted when the vote is closed will be considered to have abstained.
Also, I welcome your thoughts on automatically closing the vote after 48 hours, yea or nay. ssg had a good point, but I'm inclined to leave it as-is unless a lot of people want that.
I'd vote for this.
Now it sounds good to me.
I'd vote yes.
I support this latest rev as well.
I am due to fly across the Atlantic in less than 24 hours. I have a relatively short first stop (4 days in NYC) and a wedding to go to, as well as a metric shed load of things to do before I leave so I'm likely to be out of touch for a little while.
Please consider this a yes vote to rev.1. (as well as minor clarifications, though not time limit changes) in the event that I can' t get net access and am holding things up.
I'd vote for this, assuming the actual proposal states that this is an amendment to rule 305.
Nitpick: the vote on turn 307 lasted less than 19 hours. While the entire turn 307 may have lasted more than 48 hours, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison since your proposal sets a time for the voting period, not for the entire turn.
The last way out I can see is this. Change "a minimum of 48 hours" to "a civilized, reasonable amount of time" and I will vote yes. You are not going to get unanimous agreement on 48 hours.
"A civilized, reasonable amount of time" is basically what we have now, if not explicitly stated as such, so it seems to me that would not be a de facto change to the way we're currently operating.
Chuck: But at least it would codify the idea that votes are not open forever. Right now we have an ad hoc patch that has to be reworked out every time -- even AAA's wording is a step in the right direction.
Change "a minimum of 48 hours" to "a civilized, reasonable amount of time" and I will vote yes.
No. I feel that defeats the purpose of putting a time limit at all - we'd still have a judgement every damn turn, and two consecutive players could still hijack the process and exclude players. I'm not stuck on what the number is, but I am sure it needs a number to have any effect whatsoever.
I would consider changing 48 hours to "a reasonable time, and in no case less than 24 hours" if I thought that everyone who is already fine with this would stay fine with it. I doubt that is the case, though.
If that means you have to vote no, then that's what it means, I guess. Seems like with 48 hours, you'll vote no, but anything other than that voids tallus' pre-vote. Anyone else voting no makes it a net loss to change the number. (for instance, shelleycat has repeatedly indicated that 48 hours is a minimum she would consider.)
Rev. 1 looks great to me.
The word "reasonable" has no place in this ruleset.
I'll open the vote around 0500Z. I was hoping to hear from shelleycat before then, as de facto speaker of the longer time limit party.
The word "reasonable" has no place in this ruleset.
Why not? I think we're all pretty reasonable people.
ctmf is right in that I won't vote for less than 48 hours. We often have people still voting between 24 and 48 so I think it's too exclusive to go less. However, I really like the bit about how it can be closed early if everyone has voted or abstained and happily voted yes for this.
Right now it seems that AAA won't vote for anything as long as 48 hours while I won't vote for anything either less or based on numbers rather than time (i.e. 2/3 vote or whatever). I think my reasons are valid and are based on how the game has played out so far and I also don't really understand AAAs objections (why is 48 hours so long? why shouldn't those who are currently voting in the 24-48 hour time bracket be allowed to participate?). Also, fudging over a time limit with descriptive words instead of numbers is a waste of time because it's pretty obvious that we all have different ideas about what is reasonable. So it looks like we'll be going round in circles forever.
I hope it's now clear to everyone that the requirement for unanimous votes is hurting us.
Depends on what your goal is. AAA, for instance, is having a great time.
Before this is posted you should lobby aaa/shelleycat as they are most likely to torpedo time limits.
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
the issue that needs to be resolved in this unanimity bullshit. why are we (you) wasting time with proposals like this that fix things that aren't broken?
Plz hurry up and post it so I can vote it down.
For what it's worth, I agree with 1 -- if flatluigi doesn't get a majority-rules law passed, I'll be working on that the turn after.
1, 308 is already up for voting (and was up when you made that snide comment). Look at the "Current State" box from time to time.
I can't believe you people expect me to be coherent.
The unanimity bullshit was being fixed while I was proposing this. Somebody voted against that too (including yourself, dumb ass). So I guess we get to keep alternating failed votes between the two things until two complete rounds have passed.
See, the problem with voting no for score purposes, is it lets the one stubborn asshole who torpedoed the vote think they aren't the only one.
I'm considering voting no on any attempt to change the unanimity rule. At least that way It'll eventually become a majority, like I prefer.
ctmf, that road leads to spite-voting and megalomaniacal judging. Don't turn to the MeFiNo dark side!
I know what you mean. It wouldn't be spite voting, though. I'd happily vote for any other beneficial proposal.
I wouldn't, you know, show up in unrelated proposals, regardless of merit, and declare that since it wasn't all about me, I was voting no.
That was just a half-joke.
Ctmf, I only voted no to minimize points awarded. The measure had already failed. No spite whatsoever. I wish we could just change it to a majority more quickly, and then change it to whatever after that.
Well, considering only one person hasn't voted on 308 yet, does anyone want to start discussing 309?
We have to wait for flatluigi to post something to discuss.
I'm waiting for the previous turn to end.
flatluigi: You don't have to wait for this turn to end. You can begin the discussion of 309 immediately. (Just don't start its vote until 308 is finished.)
I know.
So why wait then?
I have my reasons. Besides, it's not a rule.
While I'm prepared to vote down certain time limits at least I'm giving reasons for my opinions and making it clear what is necessary for me to agree. I don't see AAA really doing either and I actually don't at all understand what he's doing. I'm starting to think he's just doing it to be an arse.
Majority rules are dangerous as things stand. Slightly too long time limits will do nothing except speed things up. Speeding them up less than you'd like is still a move in the right direction and better than letting things stagnate as a matter of principle.