[Vote Requested] Setting a time/date trade deadline

[ashes]

2 is also a no lol

[pacers]

2 is also a no lol

what time works best?

[pacers]

With 20 votes for change, this initiative is now PASSED in favor of a time/date trade deadline 1 calendar day after the Day 91-99 sim is posted.

We now need to determine the best time of day for the trade deadline - @ashes since 5pm CT and 2pm CT don't work, how about 12pm CT? If not, what works best for your schedule?

[Merv]

With 20 votes for change, this initiative is now PASSED in favor of a time/date trade deadline 1 calendar day after the Day 91-99 sim is posted.

We now need to determine the best time of day for the trade deadline - @ashes since 5pm CT and 2pm CT don't work, how about 12pm CT? If not, what works best for your schedule?

The supermajority bar is 20 Yes votes - not a percentage of the vote, or 29 votes. We designed it this way on purpose so that the bar for change is high. Personally, I do not think that 20 Yes votes over 3 seasons of voting is too high of a bar given league engagement expectations.

[pacers]

With 20 votes for change, this initiative is now PASSED in favor of a time/date trade deadline 1 calendar day after the Day 91-99 sim is posted.

We now need to determine the best time of day for the trade deadline - @ashes since 5pm CT and 2pm CT don't work, how about 12pm CT? If not, what works best for your schedule?

The supermajority bar is 20 Yes votes - not a percentage of the vote, or 29 votes. We designed it this way on purpose so that the bar for change is high. Personally, I do not think that 20 Yes votes over 3 seasons of voting is too high of a bar given league engagement expectations.

For those who don’t have instant recall of past SLN posts, Merv is quoting me from this thread, where I rejected a proposed rule change because it had 17 Yes votes and 4 No votes, failing to reach the 20 Yes vote supermajority threshold within voting limit. It seems Merv is asking why this rule passes and the other didn’t.

Overall, the judgment call I'm making is that it's important to keep the threshold for change (supermajority) but adjust the process where certain steps don't add value. From the Democracy Inaction Forum Guidelines:

If there is no supermajority voting for a single option in the poll, but multiple non-status-quo options sum up to more votes than the status quo, there will be a runoff of the two options with the most votes. If a runoff option reaches a simple majority, then that change will be enacted; if no runoff option reaches a simple majority, then the change will be rejected.

This rule change has 18 yes votes for one non-status-quo option, 2 yes votes for the other non-status-quo option, and 1 rejection. The standard process here is to now proceed to a runoff with the two non status-quo options. I decided to skip this step given the vast majority of votes was for one option. Ironically, I did this in part due to feedback from the league, including Merv, that we're too slowly in changing rules.

So yes, if people disagree with my judgment here, we can do a runoff of the two non-status-quo options, but that seems like a waste of time given where the original vote landed.

[Josh]

lol

[heimer]