It is still digitalscreams's turn.

I had an idea for an amendment to his rule change, but I originally said I would discuss it with him in private. On reflection, I don't think there will be any harm in discussing it publicly, since he is the one who ultimately puts forth the final form in which his rule change will be voted on, so if he doesn't like my idea, he doesn't have to. :-)

The new rule proposed (303) is to require that votes be cast in the same order as the order of taking turns. The stated benefit of this is that the deciding vote will no longer be in the hands of whoever takes the longest time to vote each time a rule-change vote comes up.

But there is a danger set up by 303's interaction with 105: "Every player is an eligible voter. Every eligible voter must participate in every vote on rule-changes." There is no time limit on voting, and players are not allowed to abstain from votes. Thus any player has the power to hold up a vote indefinitely. This is a problem even if 303 doesn't go into effect, but 303 will exacerbate it since each voter must wait until the preceding players have cast their votes.

I suggest that this new rule include a clause that sets a reasonable but specific time limit for each player to vote, and that any player who lets the time limit lapse without voting will be considered to have cast a vote in the negative.

Alternatively, we could continue to require that players cast votes explicitly, but give players a point bonus for voting within the time limit.

Thoughts?