Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe I am 4th in the turn order, and we are currently on turn 2. So, it's not my turn yet, and this is not an official proposal.

I'm thinking the 7-day rule may pass, but the game could still bog down if we have to wait 7 days for somebody to do something.

I would like to see multiple turns going at the same time, so if one person is unable to play (or is deliberately stalling), there will still be stuff to do. Ideally, I think we should move toward the idea of all turns being simultaneous. That is, all players make proposals on Monday, discuss Tuesday through Thursday, and vote on Friday (or a slower pace, whatever). However, that is kind of a big change, so I'm not suggesting that.

I think 2 turns at a time is enough. This could be proposed as an amendment to rule 201, which deals with alternating turns. Since 201 also deals with turn order, it would be an appropriate time to address the question of what is the turn order for new players (if they are allowed now or in the future).

Original rule:

Quote:
201. Players shall alternate in clockwise order, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points.

In mail and computer games, players shall alternate in alphabetical order by surname.



Potential proposed amended rule:

Quote:
The Play Order is a list of all current players in alphabetical order by surname. If players are permitted to join the game after this rule is enacted, they are added to the Play Order in the correct alphabetical position. If a player's surname changes, the former name governs the order of play.

A player's score is set to zero when he or she joins the game.

A circuit of turns consists of all players listed on the Play Order taking exactly one turn. No player may take more than one turn in a circuit of turns. When a circuit of turns is complete, a new circuit begins without interruption. The Play Order is treated as continuous, such that the first player on the list follows the last player, etc.

Players begin turns in the order they are listed in the Play Order. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and mandatory parts of turns may not be omitted. Two player turns shall be in effect at the same time. When a player's turn ends, the next player in the Play Order who has not already begun a turn in the current circuit shall begin his or her turn. If all players have begun turns in the current circuit, then the next player is the earliest player in the Play Order who has not yet begun a turn for the next circuit.

When this rule is enacted, the next two players on the Play Order begin their turns, and this sentence then has no further effect on the game.



Notes:

The bold face is just to call attention, and will not appear in the actual proposal.

The limit of 2 simultaneous turns could be raised to 3. But, I know some players are concerned about things moving too quickly, so I thought 2 would be a good compromise.

The rule says players "begin" turns in order, rather than "take" turns in order, since some turns may take longer than others. If turns go really fast (or players drop out), it could be possible for the same player to be taking both simultaneos turns.

There may be some confusion about calling for judges, though. I don't think it will matter, since we have already had one judge make a decision arguably during her own turn. If it's a concern, somebody can amend the judging rules later on.

I also took the opportunity to define "circuit of turns", which is mentioned in at least one other rule.

This rule would also open the way for optional actions on a turn, by limiting the restriction against turn skipping so that only mandatory actions cannot be skipped. Therefore, other rules can propose non-mandatory things you can do on your turn.

Comments and suggestions are appreciated.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: kn: Discussion of simultaneous turns
I can barely keep track of ONE turn at a time. ;-)

You need to handle conflicts when votes, etc. happen at the same time.

To keep things from getting bogged down w/o action (which I don't see as being a problem yet), we could formalize the fpd: (future proposal discussion) thread idea into some sort of a rule....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: kn: Discussion of simultaneous turns
kieron wrote:
I can barely keep track of ONE turn at a time. ;-)


I think that will become easier once we get a rhythm going. I'm mainly concerned about that rhythm being Proposal followed by Flurry of Discussion, wait, wait wait (x7), Call votes, wait, wait, wait (x7), Announce results, wait, wait, wait (x7), Next Proposal, etc.

Quote:
You need to handle conflicts when votes, etc. happen at the same time.


Not sure what you mean. If you're referring to which proposal gets which number, the BGG time stamp will set that. If two proposals go up at the exact same minute, then somebody can call for judgment.

Quote:
To keep things from getting bogged down w/o action (which I don't see as being a problem yet), we could formalize the fpd: (future proposal discussion) thread idea into some sort of a rule....


I doubt we will see it as a problem until it happens. Back-to-back-to-back players drop out, and we are done playing for 21 days. The rules currently don't allow us to accelerate that time, even if the person posts to say he is leaving the game (although I guess a judge could handle that).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: kn: Discussion of simultaneous turns
I am still interested in feedback on the idea of simultaneous turns. However, two people (Keiron and somebody else, I forget) have spoken against it, so I'll put that hold for the moment.

Here is an alternate version of Rule 201 that only deals with adding/removing players and play order, but does NOT enable simultaneous turns:

Original rule:
Quote:
201. Players shall alternate in clockwise order, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All players begin with zero points.

In mail and computer games, players shall alternate in alphabetical order by surname.



Potential proposed amended rule:
-------------------------------
The Play Order is a list of all current players in alphabetical order by surname. If a player leaves the game, that player's name is removed from the Play Order immediately.

Persons wishing to join the game may post a Join Request in the forum. If a majority of existing players post "APPROVE" in the Join Request thread, then the person becomes a player and his or her name is immediately added to the Play Order in the correct alphabetical position. Posting approval is not considered a vote, and does not affect the approving player's ability to vote on a rule-change proposal.

Players who rejoin the game after leaving it keep the score they had when they left. Players joining the game for the first time have their score set to zero.

A circuit of turns consists of all players listed in the Play Order taking a turn. No player may take more than one turn in a circuit of turns. When a circuit of turns is complete, a new circuit begins without interruption. The Play Order is treated as continuous, such that the first player on the list follows the last player, etc.

Players take turns in the order they are listed in the Play Order. A turn begins when the player who is next in the Play Order posts a proposal for a rule change, using the proper form. A turn ends when the results of the voting on that proposal are formally announced in the forum, or when the required time to announce those results expires.

Turns may not be skipped or passed, and mandatory parts of turns may not be omitted.

Any calls for judgment that are made between turns shall be treated as though they were made during the most recent turn, for purposes of selecting the judge.
-----------------------------------

Notes:
--If a player fails to begin his turn, then this rule causes him to be removed from the play order. The next player automatically becomes elible to post a proposal.

--If a player fails to post the results of a vote, then the turn ends also. This assumes we are going with the idea of the proponent keeping track of the votes and announcing the result. If not, then this has to be reworded.

--Since there is a possible gap between ending one turn and starting the next, it's necessary to address calls for judgment that happen in the interim. We could say instead that a turn doesn't end until the next turn begins, if anyone prefers that language.

--I deliberately left out time requirements for responding to Join Requests. It is just intended to allow the majority to control the timing of adding a new player without needing specific rules.

--Returning players should keep their previous score to avoid a possible loophole if somebody gets a large negative, or if low scores suddenly become desirable.

--I'm not opposed to leaving out the "circuit of turns" part. But, that term is referenced in another rule, and might be useful in the future. The main point of that paragraph is to make sure the game continues once we reach the bottom of the play order.


Okay, that's it from me for a while. Hopefully after this holiday week is over, more people will participate.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Lanctot
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just a repeat of what I've said in the other thread. I'm against simultaneous turns. It would need a lot of unnecessary editing to the initial rule set, it would mean a bigger time commitment to the game (which I assume some of us just don't have -- I certainly don't) which eventually might make it impossible for some of us to keep up.

Besides, look at what has happened so far. Even the simple rule 302 generated a lot of discussion. When the rules are more complex, and there are a lot of them, it might be too much to handle multiple rule proposals at once.

That said, I'm not against discussing a potential proposal ahead of time, which is what we've been doing. I don't see why we have to build it into the rules. That way, people who don't have time to keep up with all the off-proposal discussion need not participate until it's relevant.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sharky6000 wrote:
Just a repeat of what I've said in the other thread. I'm against simultaneous turns.


Just so it's (slightly) clear, my post immediately above yours is NOT a proposal for simultaneous turns. It relates to adding and removing players primarily.

Quote:
Besides, look at what has happened so far. Even the simple rule 302 generated a lot of discussion.


I see that we have different ideas of what constitutes "a lot". Understandable. Like I said above, I'll drop the simultaneous turns issue. I do feel it will become necessary eventually.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sharky6000 wrote:
Just a repeat of what I've said in the other thread. I'm against simultaneous turns. It would need a lot of unnecessary editing to the initial rule set, it would mean a bigger time commitment to the game (which I assume some of us just don't have -- I certainly don't) which eventually might make it impossible for some of us to keep up.

Besides, look at what has happened so far. Even the simple rule 302 generated a lot of discussion. When the rules are more complex, and there are a lot of them, it might be too much to handle multiple rule proposals at once.

That said, I'm not against discussing a potential proposal ahead of time, which is what we've been doing. I don't see why we have to build it into the rules. That way, people who don't have time to keep up with all the off-proposal discussion need not participate until it's relevant.


Well said. Edit: Hmm...I just noticed I can give posts a thumbs up. This seems much more efficient than quoting and saying only "Well said". I think I'll do that in the future.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Lanctot
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lol.. I just "thumbs up"ed your post describing how you should use a thumbs up rather than post. But I thought it would be funny to tell you that in another entirely unnecessary post. Luckily, you can't thumbs down!

Actually, it is not entirely unnecessary because you know who the approval is coming from, but OK.. I'm just getting silly now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken H.
United States
Amherst
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Hmmm, since "thumbs" are not anonymous, they could be used for voting. Not secret like email, but better than polls. It gives no way to differentiate NO from ABSTAIN, though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: kn: Discussion of adding/removing players
I like that you are trying to determine how to add new players, and handle drop outs. I hope you don't mind if we focus on just that, rather than muddy things with turn order and judge rules (even though those things are helpful).

With that in mind, it doesn't need to change 201.

Why don't we keep this thread as a discussion on simultaneous turns, and create this new thread for adding/removing players?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kieron Mitchell
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
Http:\\www.kieronmitchell.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rubric wrote:

Hmmm, since "thumbs" are not anonymous, they could be used for voting. Not secret like email, but better than polls. It gives no way to differentiate NO from ABSTAIN, though.


I thought of that too...definitely better than polls for some things...BUT: no timestamp, plus you can yank it right back. Overall, not a good solution.

BTW - if you want to discuss thumbs more for voting, please do it here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.