“or they have not cast a Vote on more than 2 of the most recent 10 votable matters to be resolved.”

I disagree with this. I’d prefer it to be time-based, than Proposal-based.

Real life doesn’t go at the speed that Proposals do.

Also some ambiguity in “not cast a Vote on more than 2 of the most recent 10 votable matters”, in that it could be read as three withdrawn proposals being enough to idle everyone who didn’t vote on them.

Thanks Kevan; is the amended wording clearer?

or they have failed to cast a Vote at least 7 of the most recent 10 votable matters to be resolved.

A group of four players and an empty queue could idle the entire rest of the game (by making eight proposals, immediately self killing them, and thus being able to idle everyone else)

Furthermore, when a player joins they would immediately be absent due to not having cast votes on any of the last 10 proposals.

@Clucky Proposals have to be open for 12 hours before they can be resolved; if your cabal of 4 managed to make that fly then fair enough, more power to them.

Fair point on new players, although it could have used a fix rather than an against vote imo.

“The oldest Pending Proposal may be Failed by any Admin, if any of the following are true:

It is Unpopular.
It has been Vetoed or Withdrawn.”

The 12 hour limit only applies to proposals being enacted. It does not apply to proposals being failed.

also this was after 4 hours old, hence the vote against

Oh, yes, I know it was out of the edit window, I’m not alleging that the crime of malicious window tampering has taken place.

In any case, I’ll withdraw for now

“malicious window tampering” is gonna be the theme of my next dynasty. not edit windows its just going to be about defenestration

[Josh] “failed to cast a Vote at least 7 of the most recent 10 votable matters” would catch some unintended situations, most strikingly a player being absent for a few proposal-heavy days and then apologetically returning and voting, but only having two or three proposals open to vote on. A validly active but infrequent player could also end up being idled if there was a run of uncontroversial proposals that all enacted after 12 hours, before they had a chance to vote on any of them. The murkier we make the idling rule, the more scope there is for an admin to notice a fortuitous gap in someone’s voting and knock them off the board.

Formalising a four-day nudge sounds okay to me, I wasn’t performing those scrupulously but they seemed to work (either waking a player up or prompting them to decide to idle out early) when I did.

I’m less sure what to do about players who deliberately only keep the slightest of hands in the game; maybe that needs to be picked apart a bit more. Is it that players are hovering in case anyone offers them a part in a scam or a resource pool, and they don’t want to idle out in case people forget they’re around?

I’m sure that there are as many reasons as there are people.

I kinda wish that this proposal had had better scrutiny; the core question it’s asking is “do we want players to keep clinging on to the game with a fingertip”, and I’m not absolutely certain that that the answer is ‘no’.

@josh for the record, in my case the answer is a “no” but not a super strong one