Thursday, August 11, 2016

Proposal: Troubled Times Require Bold Action

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 2-6 by Kevan.

Adminned at 11 Aug 2016 18:44:44 UTC

In “Gamestate Tracking” replace:

If no Hunter has commented on it, or if the only comments on it begin with “Note:” and contain no voting icons, an official post may be altered or removed by its author; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset. However, despite this, official posts can never be changed from one category to another, or changed to be a different sort of official post, if they have been posted for more than fifteen minutes. The Admin processing an official post is allowed to append to the post to reflect its new status. Anything appended to a post in this way must be placed in the Admin field of the post, and the post’s Status must be changed to reflect its status.

with:

If no Hunter has Voted on it and it is less than 30 minutes old, an official post may be altered or removed by its author; otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset. However, despite this, official posts can never be changed from one category to another, or changed to be a different sort of official post, if they have been posted for more than fifteen minutes. The Admin processing an official post is allowed to append to the post to reflect its new status. Anything appended to a post in this way must be placed in the Admin field of the post, and the post’s Status must be changed to reflect its status.

I think it makes for bad game play for everyone to wait forever to vote just in case someone puts a Note on it.

Comments

Bucky:

11-08-2016 02:34:27 UTC

against

RaichuKFM: she/her

11-08-2016 02:39:25 UTC

against I have mixed feelings on the thing as a whole, but this would allow non-votable matter Official Posts to be editable for a whole thirty minutes, with no way whatsoever of stopping it,

Which is more than enough to warrant an against, I think.

Larrytheturtle:

11-08-2016 02:57:25 UTC

What would people support? I think it is a problem?

Sci_Guy12:

11-08-2016 03:50:06 UTC

for  I think this is a step in the right direction.  This would really be helpful.

Kevan: he/him

11-08-2016 09:07:20 UTC

Does anyone really hold back from voting just in case someone else has a note to make? I can understand not voting for a while if someone’s already added a note, but assume that gets approached pragmatically based on how busy the queue is and whether the voter thinks they’ll have time to come back later.

qwertyu63:

11-08-2016 12:46:46 UTC

against

Larrytheturtle:

11-08-2016 14:06:34 UTC

@kevan I’ve seen enough people say something along the lines of “note: looks good but I’m not gonna vote yet, just in case” that I would say yes. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of proposals had to time out to pass or fail last dynasty.

Clucky: he/him

11-08-2016 14:20:23 UTC

against

I think what we currently have is fine. Have you noticed any scenarios where people have actually waited too long and its caused problems?

Kevan: he/him

11-08-2016 17:00:31 UTC

against I’m insufficiently convinced for now, although I admittedly wasn’t here last dynasty.

Aft3rwards:

11-08-2016 18:10:29 UTC

imperial