A player may nominate that the debate time for a specific proposal can be extended for a further 48 hours this is put into effect by a simple majority consensus in that proposals thread during the course of the debating period. Debate time for a proposal can be extended indefinately with a succession of time extensions.
Proposals extended in this manner are considered work in progress and voting on the proposal is put on hold until the extra time is no longer needed.
At the end of the initial 48hr debating period if a time extension has been enacted the players turn effectively ends and the proposal is developed in parallel to the normal cycle of turns. The next player in the cycle has 48 hours to submit a proposal at the end of the initial 48 hour debating period.
When there are no further time extensions the normal phases of the turn (submittion of a final draft and voting) occur.
i see no problems with this.
Make sure that only a single extension is allowed. I don't want to see rules being discussed ad infinitum. >_>
Personally, I think there is already enough time for debate. 48 hours is more then enough time to debate a given proposal, and if anything I think the time could be reduced a bit.
Actually, I think 48 hours is pretty much just right. I don't object entirely to the concept of having extra time, but reducing it feels off. >_>
I can't see many proposals taking more than 48 hours but it is a definite possiblity. In light of Final Proposal 302 #1, where more time was actually necissary to flush out semantics, this is neccissary.
also, there is really no problem if debate goes on ad infinitum, since the proposal states that turns would continue on their own time schedules. actually, some things i would like to see added/changed are this:
the extension can be for any specifically stated period of time, not just 48 hours (but "indefinitely" is out)
there should be a cap on the number of proposals under debate at the same time. . .having 20 built up at the same time could get overwhelming.
Having multiple proposals to keep track of isn't something I want to get heavily into. I'm certain this rule would be used too much, and I'm not thrilled about it. >_>
Giving extra time may also be giving people excuses to *not* post now, because they can do it later, and that's something I'd like to avoid. Urgency is good! >_>
This might have helped with fleshing out the last proposal. (: This sounds good, but I agree with Quintopia, Leus' Butt Man's suggestions. There need to be limits on number of proposals under debate and length of time for debate, or there's the potential for inaction. Also, curious how you'll keep this from conflicting with rule 201:
Quote from: "201"Once the first phase of a player's turn is complete, the next player may begin the first phase of their turn. No two seperate turns may be in the same phase at any time, even if this causes a phase to remain incomplete longer than is permissible under other rules. In this way multiple turns may be occurring at the same time, but never at the same stage.
...as your proposal would clearly cause multiple turns to be in the same phase (debate) at the same time.
Hmm, forgot about 201.
My idea was to keep the turns going but pull the odd proposal aside for extra fleshing out as needed. Unfortunately this conflicts with 201.
A couple of possibilities spring to mind:
1) We could call it the "Special Development Phase". By renaming it and considering it a separate phase to debate it wouldn't quite conflict with 201. In the draft proposal I say the players turn effectively ends when their intial debate time is over. rewording this so say that their turn IS ended may help reduce conflict with 201 as well.
2) The other possibility is to rewrite the proposal to say that the debate is extended until the next player posts their proposal.
My initial thought was the time extension would double the debate period. I'd think we should keep away from much longer individual time extensions to keep the proposal active and not let people leave it until later. If people do leave it for later theres a chance the next time extension nomination will fall through and force voting. An increase in the majority requirement could help this too. How about 2/3rds rather than >50%?
A cap on the proposals in extra time is a good idea. Maybe 3?
Then this would edit rule 203 (I think it is) and add an optional phase to a person's turn. And the majority vote is unecessary in this case because not only would it require time, but if the proposal needs more time, it could only be needed by a few people, not enough to create a majority. Changing it to require one person to ask for extended time (probably needs to be the proposer) and two people to second it.
i like BaroFatua SuperusSophia's idea there about requring less votes to extend, as long as you specify that it can only be extended once. Second extensions should still require a majority vote. Also, as 201 is mutable, you can simply state that this rule takes precendence over that and there will be no problem.
Quote from: "SuperusSophia"Changing it to require one person to ask for extended time (probably needs to be the proposer) and two people to second it.
I like this idea, and then for further extensions either go with the majority voting, or state that further extensions cannot be proposed/seconded by the individuals involved in the first time extension.
Quote from: "quintopia"Also, as 201 is mutable, you can simply state that this rule takes precendence over that and there will be no problem.
True that. (:
Also, three sounds like a good maximum number of proposals in extension at once, and I think that with a majority vote required for multiple extensions we won't have to worry about extensions dragging on indefinitely, so there's no need for a number of extensions limit.
I don't like the idea of being able to filibuster a particular proposal. I also do't like the idea of proposals being enacted out of order. I also don't like the thought that a proposal could be held until next session, when the number of votes required drops to 2/3rd.
This is a very dangerous pro-party proposal as it stands. If you seriously need extended debate time - and I'd argue that 48 hours is plenty, and any more and we should be discussing a "break" or "hold" on the game entirely, not an extended discussion.
Just throw in an limit on extensions, and delayed proposals are still subject to the rules in effect when they were originally imposed.
lord high poomba casualsax really wants a filibuster rule. luckily, if you put the majority vote thing in, it's not a true filibuster, and further, filibustering doesn't do any good in an online environment anyway.
I do not want a filibuster rule that allows the majority to filibuster a minority. A filibuster is a check on the majority, not the minority.
Furthermore, it would do a ton of "good" to the filibusters. If a party had a majority/near majority..not only could they shelve controversial proposals, but they could pass their own while keeping them locked up.
Also, I never said I wanted a filibuster rule. I pointed out a way to include such a thing in a proposal, yes - but at that time I had not thought about the implications of such a device..not to mention that this proposal is perhaps the absolute worst way to impose filibustering.
And, lastly, you should not go pointing fingers about how "useless" it is when you have specifically implicated thinking about implimenting it yourself. I am not the "evil manipulator" here - if anyone falls in that catagory, you do.
i never actually laid out a proposal on how to implement it, because i never intended to implement it. I just wondered how it could be done. However, as I pointed out, filibustering for 48 hours does no good in an online environment where it takes 24 hours for some to make a single post anyway. Why is this the absolute worst way of implementing it praytell?
And you can call me an "evil manipulator" if you want (notice I never did call you that), but in any governmental system, it's important to figure out ways to force important issues. I don't care if things don't turn out in my favor, but if I see something that needs to be addressed, I am going to bring attention to it where possible.
Look, there is no reason to start attacking each other over this. If limits are placed on the extensions, that effectively limits filibustering. If we throw in the clause I stated earlier, that continues to limit filibustering.
While I don't see it actually coming into play anytime in the near future, it should be there just in case a serious need arises.
You did firmly state you were discussing it, and I never submitted a proposal - I was merely tossing the idea around. Filibustering for any amount of time that could offset the order of proposals past is a horrible, horrible idea. Proposals could be passed that change the number of votes that are required before an item comes to vote, for example.
A majority extention is also kind of crazy - it could be proposed right before the 48 hour mark, and only one vote - yes - would appear, and so it would be extended.
ON another note:
I want to add that my primary goal at the moment is to fix the ability to abuse judgments (I have several in agreeance) and to add to the actual 'game' elements. I don't want this to simply be a game where all the points are decided by how many passed proposals one has. The kingdom concept would have helped start us down one of the several paths that would fix that problem - but, it doesn't really matter what it is. If someone wants to make us all surfers, and have stat points and the like..anything, random or not.
FINALLY:
The debate time for this proposal as over, and this thread should have already been locked.
oops, i'm breaking the rules by posting this then, i guess, but if this proposal passes, i wouldn't be.
but by majority extension, it should be 50% of eligible voters.
and really it should be 2/3 anyway.
or maybe just universally extend debate time by allowing debate periods to overlap. . .this is probably something for future porposals, but it seems we go over the allowed time on almost everything. these time restrictions are just that: too restricting.