Vote to Shorten Vote End Timer

0

Veralann·9/22/2016

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.

(Edited by Veralann)

0

Keplers·9/22/2016

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.

(Edited by Keplers)

0

Brick425·9/22/2016

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.

(Edited by Brick425)

0

Brick425·9/22/2016

Michaelyoda wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

Loney 97 wrote:
B. Not everyone can come on everyday to vote and we already have way too many rules about CVs - the whole thing is ridiculously confusing. And @Roddy, I'm glad this vote hasn't ended yet, it's still very close and I feel like there's a lot of people who still haven't voted.

Rody's entire point was that the vote would still be running. Unless you can find two votes here that were posted a day or more apart, that argument is invalid.

The first vote, and Loney's vote.

You're basing your conclusion on a single example. I'm sure if I searched long enough I could find a chat log where you're ranting about that terrible logic.

No way!

I'm only asking you GIVE ME a single example, by the way.

(Edited by Brick425)

0

Michaelyoda·9/23/2016

Brick425 wrote:

Michaelyoda wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

Loney 97 wrote:
B. Not everyone can come on everyday to vote and we already have way too many rules about CVs - the whole thing is ridiculously confusing. And @Roddy, I'm glad this vote hasn't ended yet, it's still very close and I feel like there's a lot of people who still haven't voted.

Rody's entire point was that the vote would still be running. Unless you can find two votes here that were posted a day or more apart, that argument is invalid.

The first vote, and Loney's vote.

You're basing your conclusion on a single example. I'm sure if I searched long enough I could find a chat log where you're ranting about that terrible logic.

No way!

I'm only asking you GIVE ME a single example, by the way.

How about one of the votes you (ironically) mentioned in your OP?

(Edited by Michaelyoda)

0

Veralann·9/23/2016

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)?

(Edited by Veralann)

0

Brick425·9/23/2016

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.

(Edited by Brick425)

0

Veralann·9/23/2016

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.

That's fair. I agree with you then, I suppose.

(Edited by Veralann)

0

Kingwja·9/23/2016

Brick425 wrote:

Kingwja wrote:
B.

And just a suggestion, why not have a set time for votes? Like five days (just an example) after the vote starts, no sooner no less. And even if someone votes right before the five days end, it still ends on the five day mark. I don't know if this has been brought up before, or if it's even possible, but it's just a suggestion.

Uh, a set time is what I'm asking for.

Well the way I saw your vote, if someone votes right before the time period (24 hours) is up, it would be extended for another 24 hours after that last reply. I was saying don't extend it even if there's another vote near the end.

(Edited by Kingwja)

0

Brick425·9/23/2016

Kingwja wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

Kingwja wrote:
B.

And just a suggestion, why not have a set time for votes? Like five days (just an example) after the vote starts, no sooner no less. And even if someone votes right before the five days end, it still ends on the five day mark. I don't know if this has been brought up before, or if it's even possible, but it's just a suggestion.

Uh, a set time is what I'm asking for.

Well the way I saw your vote, if someone votes right before the time period (24 hours) is up, it would be extended for another 24 hours after that last reply. I was saying don't extend it even if there's another vote near the end.

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

(Edited by Brick425)

Current Votes

Consensus