GRcade

Yeah I figured that was probably the more intended reading, but it did feel open to interpretation!

I read it Jen's way first, and then I realised how you intended it. We can vote to clarify, "If all members on a team do not post in-thread for 72h" is definitely unclear, although I would side with your intended meaning Balla. Jen's interpretation would make more sense if it said "If any member..." rather than "If all members". I think it's the negative assertion that throws off the logic!

I’m down to me last rule for today... Ho hum. Better own my mistake.

AMENDMENT: THE TIME CONDITION

If all members on a team do not post in-thread for 72h, that team loses the game and cannot win. If the Aberrations lose the Investigators win by default and vice versa. All teams are assumed to have spoken at the time of this rule being passed (so no team can lose through this rule until three days after it has been passed).

becomes

If not a single member on a team posts in-thread for 72h, that team loses the game and cannot win. If the Aberrations lose the Investigators win by default and vice versa. All teams are assumed to have spoken at the time of this rule being passed (so no team can lose through this rule until three days after it has been passed).

For: 1 (Balladeer)
Against: 0
Majority: +1

+1

(Duh, I could pass another rule if I wanted. )

+1

I'm uh... not sure that is exactly watertight either "Not a single member" == "Zero OR more than one". A team could lose because two people posted rather than just one

You don't /have/ to use an amendment. We can just defer to rule 8:

8. Any disagreement over the interpretation of a rule must be settled by majority vote.

An amendment might be a better solution though. I'd suggest wording like "If no member of a team posts in-thread for 72h..."

New plan: collect massive amounts of doubloons by suggesting edits to my own rules.

OH WELL TOO LATE NOW

Could just amend it to be worded in the positive:

"A team is considered active if one or more members of that team has posted in the last 72h. If this is not the case then the team will be considered inactive and lose the game..."

OrangeRKN wrote:I'm uh... not sure that is exactly watertight either "Not a single member" == "Zero OR more than one". A team could lose because two people posted rather than just one

You don't /have/ to use an amendment. We can just defer to rule 8:

8. Any disagreement over the interpretation of a rule must be settled by majority vote.

An amendment might be a better solution though. I'd suggest wording like "If no member of a team posts in-thread for 72h..."

OHFERCHRISSAKE

Can we just do a rule 8 now? I don’t want to pass a second amendment. I mean, look how that turned out in the States.

I like Jen's suggestion

Actually good Amendment that covers edge cases:

If, over any contiguous 72 hour timespan, exactly zero members of a team post in this game thread, that team loses the game and cannot win. If a team loses by this rule, and subsequently only one remaining team has not lost, that remaining team automatically wins. All teams are assumed to have spoken at the time of this rule being first passed (so no team can lose through this rule until three days after it has been passed, but this clause is not triggered by amendments unless the text of amendment specifies otherwise).

For: Karl
Against:
(+1)

If, over any contiguous 72 hour timespan, exactly zero members of a team post in this game thread, that team loses the game and cannot win. If a team loses by this rule, and subsequently only one remaining team has not lost, that remaining team automatically wins. All teams are assumed to have spoken at the time of this rule being first passed (so no team can lose through this rule until three days after it has been passed, but this clause is not triggered by amendments unless the text of amendment specifies otherwise).

For: Karl, OrangeRKN
Against:
(+2)

MY TURN TO POKE HOLES NOW

I think we’ve got three teams at the moment? Abs, Invs, and OR. I feel like if one of the first two drops our due to activity, the other team should win regardless of OR’s status. Current wording suggests that OR would have had to have lost as well, and he can’t currently do so except through inactivity.

If, over any contiguous 72 hour timespan, exactly zero members of a team post in this game thread, that team loses the game and cannot win. If a team loses by this rule, and subsequently only one remaining team has not lost, that remaining team automatically wins. All teams are assumed to have spoken at the time of this rule being first passed (so no team can lose through this rule until three days after it has been passed, but this clause is not triggered by amendments unless the text of amendment specifies otherwise).

For: Karl, OrangeRKN
Against: Balladeer I s’pose
(+1)

Balladeer wrote:MY TURN TO POKE HOLES NOW

I think we’ve got three teams at the moment? Abs, Invs, and OR. I feel like if one of the first two drops our due to activity, the other team should win regardless of OR’s status. Current wording suggests that OR would have had to have lost as well, and he can’t currently do so except through inactivity.

If we argue that OR is on a team, then it's totally fair that he could win through this team-based activity rule. If he wants to win through other methods, he should propose a different victory condition for himself.

Just being pedantic but are we genuinely assessing this over a 72h period of are we more likely to apply it based on a period of three complete days (GMT) passing without anyone in a team posting?

A 72 hour period could span from halfway through day 0 until halfway through day 3 and result in team elimination despite someone having posted on both day 0 and day 3 and only being absent for days 1 and 2.

Fair enough from that side; but if OR wins, then the other teams can’t win based on current wording. The Abs (say) could lose, and the Invs would then be in limbo!

PEDANDTRY FOR ALL

(...I’m keeping the misspelling, it works quite well.)

That was the intention Jen. You’d better get up early in the morning on Day 3 and save your team! Obviously I don’t mind if that gets amended too, serves its purpose either way.