Saturday, May 12, 2018

Proposal: Voting Windows [Appendix]

5 to 0 after 48 hours. Enacted by Derrick

Adminned at 14 May 2018 13:01:02 UTC

In “Gamestate Tracking”, replace “An official post may be altered by its author if it is less than six hours old” with:-

An official post may be altered by its author if it is less than two hours old

It feels like there might be a connection between the length of this informal voting moratorium (where players feel they shouldn’t vote on any non-trivial proposal within the first six hours in case somebody else spots a problem with it) and general blog silence with proposals timing out.

In a lot of ways six hours seems far too long to be useful as the last chance for a proposer to check back and apply fixes - if someone posts a proposal in the afternoon, they’ll likely be offline at the six-hour point. Similarly, if a voter sees a new proposal arrive in their afternoon, there’s a strong social pressure for them to save their vote until the next day (and remember which proposals they need to do this for).

Let’s try two hours.

posted by Kevan at 12 May 2018 10:00:00 UTC Comments (10)

Comments

Madrid:

12-05-2018 13:32:19 UTC

Maybe increase the speed you can re-submit too, via self-killing. For example:

Any Sailor may submit a Proposal to change the Ruleset or Gamestate, by posting an entry in the “Proposal” category that describes those changes (unless the Sailor already has 2 non-self-killed Proposals pending, or has already made 3 Proposals that day).

Madrid:

12-05-2018 13:39:34 UTC

(Mainly so that those who want to get more activity out - proposals - can do so, given how mistakes are more likely to appear at lockdown time if we assume if people aren’t going to be more cautious, and therefore slower, with submitting in the first place with this and we have the same tempo as usual.)

derrick: he/him

12-05-2018 15:25:50 UTC

for

That’s it own proposal cuddlebeam.

Its less than 6 hours later, but in the spirit of this proposal, I’m voting at 5.

card:

12-05-2018 16:09:20 UTC

for

card:

12-05-2018 16:19:08 UTC

[Cuddlebeam] You don’t remember when we already had a rule that did that? It resulted in you self killing proposals at the first signs of against votes.

Madrid:

12-05-2018 17:21:40 UTC

@Card: Yes, because our voting is very bandwagony. The first votes decide the proposals.

Madrid:

12-05-2018 17:22:37 UTC

(Unless someone comes to change the tide, but a tide change of redticks to greenticks is way too rare to rely on)

Corona:

12-05-2018 18:02:36 UTC

Well, I’d say it’s not due to some mob psychology thing, but due to the first commenters pointing out flaws in the proposal. for

Madrid:

12-05-2018 20:07:51 UTC

...That is actually how this “mob psychology” works. People aren’t unreasonable and they tend to agree to flaws being pointed out. But if nobody does, then the vote-flow doesn’t change.

So, you get vote patterns like this:

[Proposal posted]  for  for  for  for  [Something Pointed Out] against  against  against


(Also, my vote: imperial)

ElMarko:

14-05-2018 08:45:55 UTC

for