Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-26944420-20160917185711/@comment-30683785-20160923022518

Brick425 wrote: HyperFlash Studios wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

Keplers wrote:

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

Roddy15 wrote:

HyperFlash Studios wrote: Since you are obviously set in your decision, I'm not going to waste time finding examples. I don't have a problem with the 48-hour limit because I have paitience, and I don't need every CV to end instantly. But literally, nobody is saying that now are they..... I'm not set in my decision if someone can present a case that isn't just "oh but some many people won't get to vote!", your idea that somehow 24-hours equate to a vote ending "instantly" or people who are basing the vote as if they would only get 24-hours to vote once the vote starts. I did not mean "instantly" in the literal sense, and I really, personally do not see a need for the vote to end so soon. If it needs to stay open for 48 hours longer then that's what needs to happen. You're forgetting all the votes that have been prolonged by upwards of a week because some late moron adds a vote to the losing or -- worse yet -- winning side. This aims to do that by cutting off the people who failed to vote over the span of a week. It will not end the vote "instantly" at all. The vote will still have to stay up 24 hours since the last vote, which means that as long as there is one vote per day it can stay up for, at longest, 40 days. Thank you. I'm not saying the vote timer can't be extended. I'm saying it being extended by two days is ridiculous. So instead, why don't we rule that if there are at least a certain amount of votes more than the other side that voting won't extend the timer? Or just post an overhead limit (somewhere around 14-18 days)? 1. That would undermine the balance between winning and losing sides. It would give the winning vote a good lead.

2. That's half a month. ok

ok