allow for players to forfeit their turn on taking too long (to avoid game stagnation)
I'd 👍 that, as long as the time frame is reasonable. We should also include something like a voting period, as casting a vote isn't technically "one's turn".
as well as allow for extra-git contact of players from the get go.
Honestly, I'd even go as far as requiring an extra-git contact option (or working email notifications *coughs*) so that we can make sure it's possible notify players of new developments.
[Perhaps] this is a good chance to discuss changes we could make to the initial ruleset to better suit a play-by-git version of this game
Where should we take this discussion? Or do we just continue here?
I believe per the rules Im unable to alter the content of this ammendment, outside of rules disputes such as the rule numbering issue from earlier.
Rule 111 states that "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote." It does not explicitly state that once the proponent decided on a form that is to be voted on, this form can never be changed again.
Then, again, the form is also called "final", so that could be seen as an indication that the final version is final and cannot be modified. Also, I do see how modifying the final version which was already opened for voting could introduce organizatorial issues, as it would no longer be obvious whether a vote was already cast on the "final final" version. Hence, I guess we should keep the amendment as-is (with the exception of the typo fix, that is) and add a rule which clarifies whether modifying "final" versions is possible at some point.
While it definitely deserves some improvement, I will 👍 this for now.
As a side note, do any of you know how to contact E outside of here?
I, for one, do not.
Alright, so this took me some time to notice, even with tA tagging me here. I have no clue why I didn't get notified about this PR.
Anyway.
Here, have a quick spell check 🙂
--- a/mutable_rules/301_Communication-on-github.md
+++ b/mutable_rules/301_Communication-on-github.md
@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@ To the degree possible, the game should be played using git.lain.church. Convers
Judgement can be invoked at any time by opening a new issue on the git.lain.church repository that hosts the game. If possible, the current judge should be @mentioned in such an issue, to prompt a speedy reply.
-Players may opt to use a real time chat system, seperate to git.lain.church, in order to communicate about the game, as long as all conversation needed for the execution of the game remain on git.lain.church, and care is made to inform all players of the existence of a chat system.
+Players may opt to use a real time chat system, separate to git.lain.church, in order to communicate about the game, as long as all conversation needed for the execution of the game remain on git.lain.church, and care is taken to inform all players of the existence of a chat system.
As for the matter of the amendment itself...
Players may opt to use a real time chat system, separate to git.lain.church [...]
Is there a reason why this only includes real time chats and not, for example, stuff like Fedi?
[...] and care is taken to inform all players of the existence of a chat system.
IMHO, this is too unrestrictive. Players should not only be informed about the existence of such a chat system, but also about how to access and participate in it. After all, just knowing that there is a chat does not mean you can take part in it.
Other than that, the amendment makes sense.
