Looking at this again I think the main thing the 12 hours might be doing is giving all players an opportunity to see the post and comment on it - it’s the same time period we give before enacting DoVs and proposals.

It’d be unfair to enact a proposal or DoV overnight without everyone having a chance to at least read it and point out problems or scams in it. Failing a DoV is maybe also a big enough game event to merit letting everyone weigh in: if three players are immeditely sceptical, three are going with the flow and some of the remainder (possibly including the DoVer) have an incisive observation or rebuttal that will turn the tide - but are asleep - tough luck, it fails.

We’d probably even see a shift to “hmm, not sure about this, I’ll vote later when people have discussed it more” abstentions if DoVs could be instantly failed when they hit antiquorum.

Mm, I think that the presence and promenance of the slack undercuts that argument a bit - just because a votable matter is closed doesn’t mean that the discussion has to be over any more - but I also think that a shift to a more considered tempo of voting wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

[Josh] Possibly generous to assume that a rapidly failed DoV and a growing consensus that maybe it was valid after all would end in a quorum carrying the failed DoVer on their shoulders to a CfJ’d victory, if that’s what you’re implying - rather than a pragmatic “shame you didn’t make that argument in the DoV, and can’t make another one for five days, then” and playing on.

Oh, sure - in that instance I feel like “shame you didn’t make that argument in the DoV” is the correct response - a DoV that fails is rarely the fault of the people who voted against it, however bad I think the reasoning is sometimes. I guess I feel like having a venue for discussion is the more important aspect of a post being open for longer, especially given that people really don’t seem to change their votes on DoVs all that much.