Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimmmmm]

Well, not exactly what I would have, but it's a start.

[Kirian]

The language could be clearer, but I think it definitely now fits as one rule change.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Yeah I'd probably vote for it.

One thing I'm seeing is that each rule-change, when finalized, would be voted on individually. So in the future, if we allowed multiple rule-changes per turn, they would each be voted on in turn rather than as a group, unless we changed the definition of a rule-change or something, which might require some transmutation.

This is a minor and possibly inconsequential/debatable point however. I agree that the wording right now is sufficiently contained to within a single rule.

[Grujah]

If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 3 days or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted do not become eligible voters for this vote only.

What does this mean, exactly?

Lets say that 6 out of 12 people vote, and it is 4 yes'es and 2 no's. Does it pass?

[GeoLib]

If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 3 days or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted do not become eligible voters for this vote only.

What does this mean, exactly?

Lets say that 6 out of 12 people vote, and it is 4 yes'es and 2 no's. Does it pass?

If it's been 36 hours, I would say yes, based on the rule as written.

I think I'm ok with this one, though I agree the wording could be cleaned up a bit. If the proposer withdraws the rule it fails, yes? What is the reasoning for having this be an option? I think things would be simpler if once the rule was submitted officially it had to be voted on, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Also, can we make the preferred voting format Vote Rule xxx: Yes? I think this removes any potential ambiguity.

[sudgy]

I think the rule mechanically works as is.

[Kirian]

Liopoil, I think you should put that up for a vote at this point.

[liopoil]

If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 3 days or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted do not become eligible voters for this vote only.

What does this mean, exactly?

Lets say that 6 out of 12 people vote, and it is 4 yes'es and 2 no's. Does it pass?

If it's been 36 hours, I would say yes, based on the rule as written.

I think I'm ok with this one, though I agree the wording could be cleaned up a bit. If the proposer withdraws the rule it fails, yes? What is the reasoning for having this be an option? I think things would be simpler if once the rule was submitted officially it had to be voted on, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Also, can we make the preferred voting format Vote Rule xxx: Yes? I think this removes any potential ambiguity.

yes, it fails. It's an option so that it can be ended early to speed things up if it is clear that it will fail anyway.

If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 3 days or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted do not become eligible voters for this vote only.

What does this mean, exactly?

Lets say that 6 out of 12 people vote, and it is 4 yes'es and 2 no's. Does it pass?

yes.

[Grujah]

Seems fine.
The thing is that if somebody is unavailable he doesn't slow down the progressing, I do like that.

[liopoil]

Final version, voting time!

Rule 301: Amend rule 203 to read as follows: "When a rule-change is finalized by the player proposing the rule change, it will be voted on. Players will post their votes in-thread unless the people who aren't the player proposing the rule could gain points or some other benefit from the outcome of the vote. If this is the case, players will submit their votes via PM to mail-mi. Votes will preferably be presented in the form Vote: Yes on rule ---, or Vote: No on rule ---. The player proposing the rule will by default vote yes unless they say otherwise. Once over half of the players have voted yes, the proposal is passed. Once either half the players have voted no, or the player proposing the rule chooses to end the voting, the proposal fails. Once the proposal has been resolved, all votes will be revealed if they were sent via PM to mail-mi. If a proposal has been in the voting stage for 60 hours or more and has not been resolved, all players who have not yet voted do not become eligible voters for this vote only. This effectively ends the vote with only players currently voting.

[liopoil]

sent in my yes vote.

[GeoLib]

sent in my yes vote.

As have I.

[Kirian]

sent in my yes vote.

As have I.

And my axe!

[Jimmmmm]

sent in my yes vote.

As have I.

And my axe!

If this is indeed the will of the Council, Gondor will see it done.

[sudgy]

I wonder if mail-mi will freak out at thirteen PMs...

[GeoLib]

I'm so sad that I can't upvote on forum games 

[Jimmmmm]

Seriously, anyone who blocks this, I will auto-reject them for the next 5 rounds.

[sudgy]

Seriously, anyone who blocks this, I will auto-reject them for the next 5 rounds.

I like this idea.

You have my bow. 

[heron]

Voted.

[mail-mi]

Still need three more votes.

[Jimmmmm]

Still need three more votes.

That's not too bad.

[Kirian]

Still need three more votes.

That's not too bad.

Granted he didn't say whether they were yes or no votes.

[Jimmmmm]

Still need three more votes.

That's not too bad.

Granted he didn't say whether they were yes or no votes.

Well yes. I'm hoping they're all yes votes. But the fact that all but three of us have already voted is pretty good.  Trying to get everyone to vote in 9-player Resistance was pretty painful.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Yeah I just voted (yes)

[Kirian]

Still need three more votes.

That's not too bad.

Granted he didn't say whether they were yes or no votes.

Well yes. I'm hoping they're all yes votes. But the fact that all but three of us have already voted is pretty good.  Trying to get everyone to vote in 9-player Resistance was pretty painful.

Indeed... I was kinda hoping we would start with fewer, do away with the unanimity requirement, then tweak quorum requirements and start allowing more people