The wording isn’t quite specific enough. If Proposal A has a 4-hour edit window, your wording wouldn’t allow voting on a different Proposal B even if that proposal was beyond the 4-hour window.

Also, I think you should also go a step further in defining what to do with a vote during the 4-hour window, because someone might mistakenly vote, and while the vote is “illegal” it could be construed to still count for not allowing editing of that Proposal, per the Official Post rules.

If you don’t a mind suggestion in re-wording, something along these lines would work:

No Meeple is allowed to vote on a Proposal during that Proposal’s 4-hour edit window, as described in Rule “Gamestate Tracking” subrule “Official Posts”. Any such vote does not prevent that Proposal’s author from editing that Proposal within the 4-hour edit window.

Also consider if you want to copy it to the Building Blocks wiki page, in which case you would need to add instructions to this Proposal to do so.

If you don’t propose copying it to the Building Blocks wiki page, then after this dynasty, this Building Block could go away and never return, except by re-proposing it.

Oops, I just realized that because the voting comment thing is in the Appendix, this Building Block can’t override it. This would actually require a slightly different solution:

In rule “Building Blocks”,

Add a subrule called “No Bad Faith Voting” with the description:

No Meeple is allowed to vote on a Proposal during that Proposal’s 4-hour edit window, as described in Rule “Gamestate Tracking” subrule “Official Posts”. Any such vote is an illegal comment.

In the Appendix rule “Official Posts”, replace the text “if all comments on it contain no voting icons” with “if all legal comments on it contain no voting icons”

Perhaps it would be easier to just allow edits despite early votes? That way, voting in the edit window simply just runs the risk of the proposal being edited into something that would change your vote, but we don’t have to worry about treating comments as invalid.

I guess I preferred the “illegal” option just so that it isn’t exploited by the author proposing something beneficial to everyone, getting an early vote, then changing it to punish the voters and hoping they don’t change their vote.

Granted, it’s a fairly edge-case scenario, but it offers players more protections to not count the vote if they do vote early (accidentally or on purpose) and the author intends to continue editing.

I’d prefer the approach ais mentioned. With illegal votes it would be difficult to see what the actual voting situation for a proposal is

I’m sorry, y’all got to find a way to move past this. An edit window is a nice-to-have, not a needs-to-have.

Although I’m happy to consider changing how the edit window works, I don’t like the idea of votes potentially being illegal.

I agree that the edit window is a nice-to-have. I also think it’s ok for Building Blocks to be able to adjust the “nice-ness” level of a dynasty. I find it similar in tone to “Malign Emperors”, where you get an understanding of where the lines are for behavior. That latter Building Block puts the Emperor in competition with the other players, but also prevents that same Emperor from vetoing dynastic proposals, whereas the default state allows it. No one seems to mind either of these changes being an option.

Perhaps this Proposal isn’t the right way to accomplish the stated goal, but I think that the overall idea of adjusting the blast radius of weaponized voting is a reasonable freedom to give to players.

I can see the point of view that on the face of it, the edit window doesn’t seem like such a sacred thing. However, given the level of effort in recent times to protect it by adjusting the rules around it, plus Kevan’s effort to actually change the PHP code to add the big yellow warning about the edit window, tells me that in general, the active player base likes the edit window concept and considers good behavior to be to honor it.

On that last point, I could simply be projecting “behavioral desires” on top of the efforts I mentioned to keep the edit window intact, but if that’s not what drove such efforts, why were those efforts made, then?

In favor of the Proposal “Sliding Windows” that I just posted.