The distinction between 2/3rds and unanimous seems marginal, but in this era of present-but-lightly-active players I’m worried that it shifts the emphasis wrongly - requiring unanimity makes it all the more likely that a dynasty is either held up to the full 48 hours time-out by someone who’s snoozing on quorum, or having a required vote-through by someone who’s only lightly engaged, neither of which seems ideal.

I also don’t enjoy the idea of an edge case where a DoV rushes to enactable status in the first ten minutes and then gets enacted, only for someone to realise 11 hours later that it shouldn’t have worked. That wouldn’t have come up in the past 10 dynasties but it has certainly happened at least once in the last two hundred and whatever.

My preference, I think, would be to retain a 2/3rds threshhold - which is effectively a threshholder that worked out to unanimous for engaged players - but kicks out the timer to 24 hours minimum.

I do not become active from this vote.

Josh makes solid points, but I have my own specifications I believe I would work better. The instant pass should only become active after 24 hours, so we have time to puzzle it out. Whether that’s with a regular majority or unanimous complete vote is really specifics. I’d like unanimous at 24, then 2/3’s at some later time so contentious but still agreed with by majority can go through.

I’m only replacing one of the bullet points here, DoVs will still have their simple 50% majority quorum timeout at 24 hours.

Passive players who just copy the majority’s votes will continue to nudge DoVs over the line regardless. Changing the faster timeout to unanimity acknowledges that, rather than saying that in some cases their votes will supersede those of active players who weren’t around that day (from the dynasties reviewed above, the Equity DoV passed before Emperor Ais could comment on it, the Drafting Dov passed before Ais or Clucky could; both were supported one or more passive-style players).

Genuinely inactive players who happen to join a dynasty near the end and walk away (as Verba did) are a perennial risk, but the outcome of that is only an additional 12 hours on the clock.

I was tempted to keep a minimum timer on unanimity, but it seemed more engaging not to: a player’s vote on a DoV is important, so should be cast with some care and reflection. Regretting that a DoV passed because you missed something when voting FOR it seems like a fair part of the game, and can happen whatever the timeout.

I’m only replacing one of the bullet points here, DoVs will still have their simple 50% majority quorum timeout at 24 hours.

Oh, that is a fair point - for some reason I thought there were only two bullets in DoV resolution.

That leaves me with the issue of a timer, and when viewed on its own, yeah, I see the argument for a more buccaneering approach. CoV then

[Benbot] I can’t see how a group who felt that they needed “time to puzzle it out” would all have cast votes FOR that DoV.

I feel like it would lead to the possibility that players could not playing in good faith and just cockblocking each other’s wins especially if there’s a salty dispute between players(in a couple of not so recent victories, it was disputed over the victor “deserved” their trophy)

[Raven1207] DoVs will still be able to pass with a quorum in favour after 24 hours.

I’m alright with this replacing the quick-pass bullet point. Requiring unanimity to pass early instead of 2/3rds of the playerbase seems helpful. As Kevan has pointed out, we still have the option of waiting the full 24 hours for it to pass normally, so a DoV can still be passed if it isn’t unanimous. As such, I have no issues with this proposal.

This works for me as well. An obvious victory should be unanimous, and I’m fine with having to wait 24 hours if there are inattentive slackers.