Proposal - EN World downtime does not count towards 48 h proposal deadlines
As most of you probably noticed, EN World crashed and was down for more than a day and a half. Before it crashed, a proposal was in line to pass unless another vote would be cast against it. By the time EN World was back up, the 48 hour period in which the outcome could be swayed ran out.
Based on JoeNotCharles’ suggestion, I’d like to make an addition to the charter to ensure that proposals are not resolved by “well-timed” site crashes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L4W Facilitator
When that condition has been met for 48 hours, the proposal passes and becomes part of the official rules. If a proposal receives at least 3 NO votes, and NO votes outnumber YES votes by at least two for a period of 48 hours, the proposal fails and the matter is closed.
To the above paragraph, I propose the following addition:
“In case of a site crash or similar long-term inaccessibility to L4W, the 48 hour period is reset upon access being restored.”
I don't know if I like a total reset. Say a proposal is 46 out of the 48 hours it need to pass, then enworld is out for a day and a half THEN the poor guy that wants to see his proposal waits another 48 hours? So it's a 5 1/2 day wait?
I think I'd be more in favor of a grace period of 24 hour after the boards come back up would work better IMO.
I don't think it should be a hard-limit of time. I think if the site goes down, you should simply have the remainder of whatever time was left. I.e. If 36 hours passes after the last vote and En world goes down, you should have the remaining 12 hours to continue voting. Having only 24 hours after Enworld crashing immediately after the last vote is cast wouldn't necessarily be fair, nor would resetting the 48 hours if it was only 8 hours left in the voting time.
Ok, I see I read the word 'reset' wrong. Not counting time the server is down would be ok. We'll need something/someone that tells us around when the server goes off/comes back on though. I know I can't tell you that info from the last outage.
The only problem in extending the deadline by the length of the outage is figuring out exactly how long the outage is. Did it go out when there were 6 hours left or only 4? I favour just extending it by 24 hours. Or maybe, "For every 24 hours or fraction thereof that enworld is inaccessible due to server outages, the deadline is extended by 24 hours." Or 12 hours. I think 6 hours is too fine-grained, though.
Another option is to allow judges to vote by mailing the judges lists, with the understanding that when the boards come back up someone will publish all the votes that happened on the list. Actually, I think this is a good idea anyway, so that judges can vote if they personally can't get to the boards even if the boards are up. (For instance, I was just on a train with cell service but no wireless for 10 hours, so before I left I wrote down all the Dragon proposals so I could read the magazines while I was travelling. If voting on the mailing list was allowed, I could have voted with my Blackberry, if I had a Blackberry.)
Anyway, YES on restting the deadline. YES on extending the deadline by 24 hours in case of a server crash. YES on extending the deadline by the duration of the crash. YES on "For every 24 hours or fraction thereof that enworld is inaccessible due to server outages, the deadline is extended by 24 hours." YES on "For every 12 hours or fraction thereof that enworld is inaccessible due to server outages, the deadline is extended by 12 hours." YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges when the server is inaccessible. YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges, even if the server is accessible.
Don't know when I'll have time to post again, want to be sure I've covered all the bases.
Ok, I see I read the word 'reset' wrong. Not counting time the server is down would be ok. We'll need something/someone that tells us around when the server goes off/comes back on though. I know I can't tell you that info from the last outage.
I don't know how to answer this question, either, and it's an important one.
I'd rather err on the side of letting the judges get their say and passing things a bit more slowly, rather than rushing the process because players are eager to use things. This is PbP after all; a day or two here and there is small potatoes.
I'd rather err on the side of letting the judges get their say and passing things a bit more slowly, rather than rushing the process because players are eager to use things. This is PbP after all; a day or two here and there is small potatoes.
I agree.
From the moment a new source of character options is published, it takes more than 90 days before it is open for proposal on L4W. Even with discussion throughout those 3 months, all proposals so far have still taken longer to resolve. In effect, 48 hours essentially always constitute less than 2% of the total time it takes for new content to get through.
Its not a big deal: A little patience is a small price to pay to get things right.
The first and last 2 suggestions by Joe are also ok by me, however. I'm not too hot on extending time based on server downtime, though - if EN World is down for 2 weeks, it does seem excessive to wait 2 weeks for a proposal to pass.
Never thought about that - guess I was too hasty. Revised votes:
YES on restting the deadline. YES on extending the deadline by 24 hours in case of a server crash. NO on extending the deadline by the duration of the crash. NO on "For every 24 hours or fraction thereof that enworld is inaccessible due to server outages, the deadline is extended by 24 hours." NO on "For every 12 hours or fraction thereof that enworld is inaccessible due to server outages, the deadline is extended by 12 hours." YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges when the server is inaccessible. YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges, even if the server is accessible.
Last edited by JoeNotCharles; 22nd July 2009 at 01:34 AM..
How about we combine #1 and #2 then? Have it default to to 24 hours and if any judges think a full 48 hours is needed, all they have to do is post that and it gets extended to 48 hours.
That way we can move things along if the votes are already in or the debate is over but if things aren't resolved yet we can have the extra time. Sound fair?
How about we combine #1 and #2 then? Have it default to to 24 hours and if any judges think a full 48 hours is needed, all they have to do is post that and it gets extended to 48 hours.
That way we can move things along if the votes are already in or the debate is over but if things aren't resolved yet we can have the extra time. Sound fair?
It doesn't really seem necessary to expand with a clause like this. If you allow another 24 hours after the first 24 hours, then essentially its just 48 hours.
What's the big deal about one more day of patience? Most PBP combat rounds don't move that fast.
It doesn't really seem necessary to expand with a clause like this. If you allow another 24 hours after the first 24 hours, then essentially its just 48 hours.
What's the big deal about one more day of patience? Most PBP combat rounds don't move that fast.
I suggested the 24 because of cases where it's going to pass, like when you have 5 yes and 0 no's. Why make someone wait an extra 24hr if you don't have to?
As for why worry about another 24hrs? If someone is waiting to level up their character, everything adds up. If it passes then I have to fix my sheet, then it has to be approved, then hopefully the adventure I wanted to get in hasn't already filled up or started while I waited. I'm not going to ask someone to let me into their adventure when I don't know when I'm even going to send my sheet in for advancement.
I guess I'd have to ask, what's the big deal with cutting a day off the waiting time if the proposal is a forgone conclusion? Is patience better than timeliness?
I guess I'd have to ask, what's the big deal with cutting a day off the waiting time if the proposal is a forgone conclusion? Is patience better than timeliness?
In general, yes. These rules apply for the entire L4W community, not just the single player that feels the need to rush.
The proposal that brought this issue up was not a forgone conclusion, but rather one where a single vote mattered. It is exactly in cases like this that patience is required, and the whole premise for why I made this suggestion.
If you want to go on an adventure and its about to fill up, go on it. Your PC doesn't have to be approved to start adventuring, and if there's a problem with your sheet it can easily be adressed long long before it ever becomes relevant for the DM to award XP. In fact, the DM may opt to award XP only once level-ups become relevant - that's usually months after adventure start.
The proposal that brought this issue up was not a forgone conclusion, but rather one where a single vote mattered. It is exactly in cases like this that patience is required, and the whole premise for why I made this suggestion.
I never claimed that my proposal was forgone conclusion. However, I've seen proposals that were and it seems unfair to add extra time to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunamin
If you want to go on an adventure and its about to fill up, go on it. Your PC doesn't have to be approved to start adventuring, and if there's a problem with your sheet it can easily be addressed long long before it ever becomes relevant for the DM to award XP. In fact, the DM may opt to award XP only once level-ups become relevant - that's usually months after adventure start.
It'd be ok to enter a game with an unofficial weapon, armor or ability? That becomes relevant from the start. If I don't have the unofficial weapon, armor or ability, I'm at a disadvantage in the game and the encounters are that much harder. Then when it becomes official, does the item/power mysteriously appear? Or do I wait months for the adventure to end? Do I go though what may be a whole level without the item/power?
Case in point, I just went to third and lets say I want a 3rd level power from a new source. When does it show up if i enter a game without it? Or if I wanted to buy a new item with my money during level up break. When does it show up in the adventure?
Case in point, I just went to third and lets say I want a 3rd level power from a new source. When does it show up if i enter a game without it? Or if I wanted to buy a new item with my money during level up break. When does it show up in the adventure?
As noted in the charter, unapproved characters are at the DM's discretion.
If your PC is unapproved because he/she has the At-Will power of Instant Encounter Win or the +7 Sword of Awesome, your DM probably wouldn't allow you entry in the adventure in the first place. If your PC is unapproved because he/she has a power or item from a new WotC source that might be approved soon, its pretty simple to substitute a power or item of the same level and category until the matter is resolved. If its a "forgone conclusion" (5 votes for, 0 votes against), no DM would bother.
These - still theoretical - rare issues are easily worked out together with DM and judge. Given retraining rules and overhauls mid-adventure, there's no reason to suggest a player would be punished by eliminating a class option with no replacement.
Case in point, a PC in the Closed Eye has already changed powers and abilities extensively, and we're still underway in the adventure. He changed to illusion powers with an overhaul between encounters, before the overhaul rules was passed and the game survived just fine. If the proposal had not passed, it would have been a simple matter to reverse any changes.
To reiterate, the rules of the game apply to the entirety of the L4W community, not just a hypothetical case of a player that needs the right proposal passed at the right time for the right adventure. So when we make changes to the rules I'd rather we make sure we do it right rather than rush, since the result has impact well beyond the original proposer.
As noted in the charter, unapproved characters are at the DM's discretion.
Well I KNEW unapproved characters are at the DM's discretion. My question was to how far that discretion would go. Honestly, these are the kind of things I like taking care of before I start an adventure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunamin
These - still theoretical - rare issues are easily worked out together with DM and judge. Given retraining rules and overhauls mid-adventure, there's no reason to suggest a player would be punished by eliminating a class option with no replacement.
Since I haven't had these issues here myself or been in a party here with them I didn't know. That's why I asked the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunamin
Case in point, a PC in the Closed Eye has already changed powers and abilities extensively, and we're still underway in the adventure. He changed to illusion powers with an overhaul between encounters, before the overhaul rules was passed and the game survived just fine. If the proposal had not passed, it would have been a simple matter to reverse any changes.
Ok, that's good to know. That was my worry, because a character could end up being taken in a totally different direction because of a proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunamin
To reiterate, the rules of the game apply to the entirety of the L4W community, not just a hypothetical case of a player that needs the right proposal passed at the right time for the right adventure.
Ok, lets be fair here, that was NEVER my point. As said above, a character could change radically do to a proposal and if that change would be an issue in him getting into a game he was interested I thought it should be resolved in a timely manner. I still do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunamin
So when we make changes to the rules I'd rather we make sure we do it right rather than rush, since the result has impact well beyond the original proposer.
See, I still fail to see how my suggestion is rushing anything. It just makes settled issues pass quicker and contentious one can still go the full 48hr by a single judge asking for more time. It seem a win/win for both timeliness and patience/getting it right.
The point is, you can tell that a settled issue is going to pass so you can safely make your character using those rules knowing it will be approved once the issue passes. Shaving 24 hours off the wait time in this case doesn't actually change anything about your process of making a character, for practical purposes.
Shaving 24 hours off the wait time in this case doesn't actually change anything about your process of making a character, for practical purposes.
Personally I made up 2 versions of my character on paper, one with the proposal and one without. Once my proposal passed, it was just the time it took to input the changes onto the sheet then e-mail. So a 24hr extra wait would have translated into an extra 23hours and 40 min of waiting for my character to be approved. So the extra 24hrs in translated almost 100% into extra waiting, and IMO needless waiting.
If you guys want to just make it 48hrs, fine. I just don't understand your recalcitrance to a shorter time for proposals that are GOING to pass. I see no benefit in the thread lingering an extra 24hrs after all the votes are in.
Elecgraystone, with respect, I think you're not exactly the norm, here. I think most of us are content with a bit longer wait for new material.
I still don't know what, if anything, has actually been proposed in this thread. We can talk all we want about what to do if the server goes down at time A and doesn't come back up until time B, but unless we have a way to actually identify times A and B, I'm not sure what we can do.
Elecgraystone, with respect, I think you're not exactly the norm, here. I think most of us are content with a bit longer wait for new material.
I still don't know what, if anything, has actually been proposed in this thread. We can talk all we want about what to do if the server goes down at time A and doesn't come back up until time B, but unless we have a way to actually identify times A and B, I'm not sure what we can do.
I concur.
The original proposal remains outlined in the original post, though if need be I would also support Joe's first and last 2 suggestions (given in his initial post of this thread).
I don't know of a way we can identify when the server is back up, so perhaps a more "fluid" option like this would be a possibility:
"In case of a site crash or similar long-term inaccessibility to L4W, the deadline is extended to the end of the day following the one where access it restored (using EN World's GMT +2)."
The community is big enough that there's always someone checking in every day (judges in particular ), so we can tell what day its back up. In practice, you would always have more than a day to react but no more than two.
How's that for a compromise?
But in addition, I also favor this one as a supplement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles
YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges, even if the server is accessible.
), so we can tell what day its back up. In practice, you would always have more than a day to react but no more than two.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
