Well, I voted no. Not because I endorse multi-battles or anything like that, I'm one of the loudest voices condemning them, but because deciding when battles can happen should be for the players alone. We have to reach a diplomatic consensus that suits our specific world and specific player-base's needs.
Also because I fear that context will not be considered when ban point are applied, because some of the situations involving multis are accidental or nuanced.
Simply moving a battle on request is good enough, and ideally ban points would only be considered for extreme cases of repeat offenders, causing large-scale disruption.
In the olden days a multi was within 8 hours.
There seems to be two definitions of "multi-battle".
- A multi battle is when two or more battles are running at the same time.
- But also when two or more battles are running within a diplomatically agreed time-frame.
An 8 hour gap was left between battles in some worlds, so players could actually attend them both - with modern regen sets and buffs, we don't need
to wait very long now.
Certain worlds have no diplomatic digging agreement, and they have functionally died as a consequence - this is no great loss to the game as a whole.
If the "leaders" of a world cant understand that what they want and what their opponents want are as important as each other, and that a world only survives because of cooperation, then making an unofficial rule can't save them from themselves.