To also add on: Currently votes on “Vote, Meeples!” is divided and also has more than a half a day until the possibly “official” resolve time ends

I’m afraid the preservation of edit windows are not a tactical consideration. Vote Meeples requires me to act defensively and I intend to do so.

I don’t quite see the tactical significance. Why is a comment not sufficient? If it’s truly defensive, that should protect your Sprint resource without further effort.

Immediately voting against every Proposal doesn’t seem to give any additional defensive benefit that I can determine. I admit that you frequently see a lot of angles I don’t, due to your experience and perspective. What am I missing?

Here’s what I’m interested in: ais proposed the mechanic, and you voted for it, presumably on the basis that you wanted to see people engaging and discussing and debating on posts more. If that’s the case, why are you now arguing for players to circumvent it by posting a comment that just says “ok”? How is that achieving and objective? Aren’t you just adding a confounding bit of admin that serves no purpose other than to punish people for inattention, and which will in effect actually prevent barely-idle players from dropping out of the game and thus baking them in to a permanently held-up quorum?

How has this mechanic possibly made the game better if you’re already arguing that players should just turn it into a pointless bit of busywork?

It’s a shame this discussion didn’t happen in the “Vote, Meeples!” proposal itself while you had the chance. It seems like you have a lot to say on this matter, but yet didn’t say it there. The outcome might have been different if you had pursuaded enough people, myself included.

That said, there’s a premise here that I’m not quite getting. If a player is trending towards being idle, losing a small bit of a minor resource is not likely to stop them from going idle and dropping out, since resources don’t have any value if you’re not actively intending to use them.

The goal, at least how I see it (and others have their own opinions of course), is to actually move the fence sitters in one direction or another. If they care enough for their resources to matter, this is a nudge to get more participation in Proposals, even if it’s just an acknowledging comment. I disagree that it’s just an action with no purpose. Merely commenting on a Proposal indicates that one is aware of its existence, which is the bare minimum being sought after. Discussion and debate would be great, but somehow forcing that would be hard and also a wrong-headed approach.

The additional factor is the 48-hour timeout clause, which I like to keep mentioning because it means that snap decisions are not required. If a Proposal is on trajectory to be resolved due to being Popular or Unpopular, further interaction is not as necessary due to its inevitability, unless someone wants to sway voters in a different direction, in which case that debate and discussion is a good thing. In any case, there’s 48 hours to determine which way a Proposal is going, which feels like plenty of time to judge whether or not an acknowledging comment or a vote is necessary.

The only case where this matters is for Proposals where the fate is uncertain, due to split opinions or a lack of votes entirely. In those cases, acknowledgement of the Proposal via comment is the minimum, even if it doesn’t resolve the fate of the Proposal, because that at least tells everyone else that the commenter knows the Proposal exists and yet doesn’t have a solid opinion on it. That may at least encourage the author to withdraw it if they haven’t made a compelling-enough case, or they could let it ride and play out as it may. They at least know that whatever happens to it, the result isn’t due to players ignoring the Proposal entirely, at least the players that care enough about their game resources to stay invested.

Mm, there is something specific about facing down an ais-ten-paragraph-special that is deterring me from wanting to go in on this dynasty. Sorry, but you’re an experienced player, you should be able to game out some of these concequences yourself. Your post has not persuaded me that there are positive use case for this mechanic. Just adding busywork isn’t going to make anyone more invested in the dynasty.

That’s fair. I only wish that you had started this discussion in the Proposal in question. The “proof by action” of the consequences might have been avoided, but your AGAINST votes without commentary weren’t helping anyone see that. We could all benefit from additional discussion, especially when it seems like the Proposal’s resulting changes are going to be controversial or produce these unintended consequences.

Granted, there’s no requirement to explain a vote at all. It’s just that, if there’s a Proposal that you feel should not pass, ensuring that it doesn’t pass via persuasive debate feels like the shorter route than reacting to it post-passing.

I do appreciate that this has generated the necessary debate as well. It seems like the voting during the edit window was more than just defensive tactics. There was a fundamental disagreement that needed to be teased out, and we found it here.