I'm going Option B. Consider this: if it's Option A and that person continues to post unattainable challenges, how long does that go on, ad infinitum?Like @Doktor, I like to have things spelled out for me. In that vein, and hopefully to make it easy for folks to express their preference, I'll lay out the choices the way I'd like someone to lay them out for me.
Option A: the issuer of the failed challenge (Your bike on a trip through the snow) gets to issue a new challenge. In this case, that's @Bitterroot Bugler.
Option B: the issuer of the failed challenge does not get another chance; instead, the issuer of the most recently met challenge (your bike with something warm) gets to issue a new challenge. In this case, that's @Maxpressure520.
So, what should Rule 3 really mean? Choose option A or B.
I believe in grace, so I will support option “A”.Like @Doktor, I like to have things spelled out for me. In that vein, and hopefully to make it easy for folks to express their preference, I'll lay out the choices the way I'd like someone to lay them out for me.
Option A: the issuer of the failed challenge (Your bike on a trip through the snow) gets to issue a new challenge. In this case, that's @Bitterroot Bugler.
Option B: the issuer of the failed challenge does not get another chance; instead, the issuer of the most recently met challenge (your bike with something warm) gets to issue a new challenge. In this case, that's @Maxpressure520.
So, what should Rule 3 really mean? Choose option A or B.
Give it a thumbs up, or propose some different wording. When it's settled, I'll edit post #1 with the new wording.3 - Challenge is good for 2 weeks. If it is not met, the issuer of the failed challenge picks a new challenge.
Not to go crazy with this, but after all, the OP of this thread is long gone. The idea is that if there is enough WTF response to a crazy/stupid/dangerous/impossible challenge a moderator can step in to get the game going right again.9 - All challenges can be removed bymea moderator. At which point the postee of the challenge will be asked to change his current challenge. After being asked once and there is no change or challenger posts another crapy challenge then the prior challenge winner will pick a new one.
I like that change, it makes perfect sense.On a somewhat related note, I'm proposing new wording for Rule 9:
Not to go crazy with this, but after all, the OP of this thread is long gone. The idea is that if there is enough WTF response to a crazy/stupid/dangerous/impossible challenge a moderator can step in to get the game going right again.
Thumbs Up for that...My own preference is option A. So far, option A is the winner, so I'm going to propose this wording for Rule 3:
3 - Challenge is good for 2 weeks. If it is not met, the issuer of the failed challenge picks a new challenge.
Give it a thumbs up, or propose some different wording. When it's settled, I'll edit post #1 with the new wording.
The two interpretations of Rule #3 were already discussed and everyone was already asked to give their input. You can’t show up late to the discussion and then complain about the way it went just because you showed up late and missed the discussion while it was occurring.It just doesnt make sense to me for a failed challenger to get another chance, but Im all for second chances. I think It should be an actual poll vote so everyone gets a vote, but whatever.
I think input time is still Onnnn...Give it a thumbs up, or propose some different wording. When it's settled, I'll edit post #1 with the new wording.
If the overwhelming consensus is #1, then there should be a limit on how many new challenges can be issued by the member. Leaving it open ended is pointless. Eg:My own preference is option A. So far, option A is the winner, so I'm going to propose this wording for Rule 3:
Give it a thumbs up, or propose some different wording. When it's settled, I'll edit post #1 with the new wording.
That's a good addition, I like it.If the overwhelming consensus is #1, then there should be a limit on how many new challenges can be issued by the member. Leaving it open ended is pointless. Eg:
3 - Challenge is good for 2 weeks. If it is not met, the issuer of the failed challenge picks a new challenge. If the second challenge is not met, then the choice of challenge falls to the preceding winner.
I agree. That’s very valid point. 👍If the overwhelming consensus is #1, then there should be a limit on how many new challenges can be issued by the member. Leaving it open ended is pointless. Eg:
3 - Challenge is good for 2 weeks. If it is not met, the issuer of the failed challenge picks a new challenge. If the second challenge is not met, then the choice of challenge falls to the preceding winner.
