12 hours is fine without it stuff goes way too slow

Also I feel that its a bit unfortunate that a play that had multiple people rejoining, saying things in the discord like “I’m legit laughing at this” and “This is honestly as nomic as it gets / I missed this” has been met with this much hostility in terms of cfjs / rule changes to stop it from happening again

For a dynasty that didn’t even last a week

This wasn’t a long dynasty people put a ton of time and energy into only for someone to swoop in at the end. This wasn’t a brigade of people joining and organized to push through an unpopular proposal with a surge in numbers

This was a proposal written with a (possibly deliberate, possibly missed) incentive for people to unidle/reinitialize that players took advantage of. One that was pointed out, but people still voted for it anyways. It would’ve still passed without Zack/Lulu/myself joining.

The reaction to it just seems so completely overblown

I think new players who bounce tend to say that the thing that put them off was the speed of the game. I also think that the code of conduct specifies a 24 hour minimum cycle, and this change is consistent with that.

I’m inclined to agree with the aforementioned new players.

[Clucky] Already responded to a similar comment you made on Discord about this, but you’re being even more presumptive here. You cannot tell whether or not I and other players “put a ton of time and energy” into playing the game, when you weren’t playing it or reading our private messages.

This was one of the more active and engaged dynasties in a while, with five players actively trying to win it. In terms of the time and energy I personally put into it, it was on a par with other, longer dynasties.

  I don’t especially like the change since I do like 12 hour proposals, but given that it would help keep more players around and would lead to fewer changes being rushed through with only a glance, I’m voting in favour. Plus, it might encourage more discussion on existing proposals.

The one big casualty that I think we’ll see is that withdrawn proposals will stick around longer so it’ll be harder to put up fixed versions, but if we keep the Revise rule around, that should help mitigate it.

how will this help keep more players around? I don’t think this would actually get us more discussion, just lead to the proposal queue getting clogged longer as clearly popular proposal wait to get pushed through

feels like at the very least this should be a building block like the edit window removal

@Clucky As mentioned above, some new players leave because of the pace.

Worth a try. Only tangential downside I can think of is some minor admin advantage in it being more likely that an admin will be around to enact their own proposals.

[Clucky] I think we may be lapsing into using Building Blocks as easy non-answers to improving Core, rather than having a focused conversation about what would actually be best. I suspect we actually have a large consensus for reducing the edit window from 4 hours to 2 or 1 (and probably have done for years), but we dodged the question recently with a shrugged Building Block proposal to toggle between 4 and zero instead.

I think we can start with this and tweak the edge cases, like failing withdrawn Proposals. Since we had the notion of resolving “revise” proposals out of order, withdrawn proposals could be handled the same way.