Is this an aesthetic preference, or do you have a technical objection?
14x14 allows for a great number draws between 2, 4 and 7 players. But so does 15x15, with draws possible between 3, 5 and 9 people.
13x13 and 17x17 don’t have this problem, being prime-sided boards.
My objection was actually purely aesthetic, but you’ve added a technical objection which is much better 
Well, it’s a different type of aesthetic… I don’t like draws, so 13x13 all the way!
A counter argument, is that larger boards may give us the opportunity to see more strategical glory, since it will be less of a “knife fight in a phone booth”.
Personally I greatly prefer 19x19 over 9x9 in normal Go, so presumably this would mean that for 8 players I prefer 25x25 over 13x13. Of course it will take long, but considering our 9x9 board with 5 players took about 30 rounds, and that is roughly 16 intersections per player, a game with 8 or 9 people on a 15x15 board has 25 intersections per player, thus probably wouldn’t take more than twice as many rounds. With the assumption that rounds will usually take 24 hours, this means a game length of roughly 2 to 3 months. It’s not that long.
You’re making a lot of optimistic assumptions there 
The main issue is that several big groups will most likely be captured, so you should at the very least extrapolate from the scenario in the first game where you and I capture Martin, and then spend several more rounds finishing the endgame.
I believe some players voted only for 48 hours per round. We should confirm with them if whether faster time controls work at all for them. If not, then I think we should either change the time controls or have those players withdraw.
I preferred 15x15, but I would rather compromise to accept 13x13 than 14x14. I prefer odd-sized boards for aesthetic reasons, and I think that reducing the likelihood of draws is a good thing. Actually, with all of the effects of group tax, shared eyes, spurious dead stones, etc., I think the exact number of intersections plays a reduced role in the likelihood of a draw.
My suggestion is to play with practically 24 hours / move, but technically 48 hours: if those who can’t don’t make a move within 24 hours, then it will be extended to 48 hours, but if everybody has made a move by the 24 hour mark, the round progresses.
So basically it’s 48 hours / move, unless everyone agrees a round can be completed within 24 hours.
Okay, single choice for the board size:
0 voters
0 voters
Interesting, seems like a strategic vote by @le_4TC picking 15x15 as their least wanted option. 
Ok, sorry, I misread. That sounds great. Can orders be “unsubmitted”? Basically to change one’s mind to force the round be extended (to the full 48 hours)?
No, I just changed my mind from before… keeping the board size smaller seems more important to me than my aesthetic concerns. (but I’m really unsure about which one is worse actually)
I’m tempted to vote for 13x13 in both polls.
I’m secretly setting up a single transferable vote 
Strategic voting should not be possible, If I’m not wrong.
That would mean you have no preference.
Ok, I changed my mind again 
Even-sized boards are just… yuck. I didn’t realize before how strongly I felt about this 
I even tried to make hoshi marks for them:
If you put some stones on them, it’s not as horrible either:
But my tengen 
(I know this is slightly irrational 
)
How does this voting system work exactly?
Suppose there were only two voters, where one preferred 13x13 > 15x15 > 14x14 and the other preferred 15x15 > 13x13 > 14x14.
If they both voted according to their preferences, then 13x13 vs 15x15 would be tied (by being in a symmetrical position). However, if one of them switches 14x14 to be their second choice, this would appear to make their first choice appear to be a better global option in some sense.
The choice with the least votes is eliminated, and all people who preferred that choice have their vote transferred to their next most preferable choice, and so on, until there is only one choice remaining.
It’s also called an instant-runoff, or alternative vote.
Well 13 | 13^2 and 17 | 17^2, but maybe that’s too many players for the board size.
Without the elimination mechanic only an equal share of the area among leading players would matter, where it’s more to do with partitions of the number of points on the board than divisors. If we’re talking about this last man standing go then maybe it does just reduce back to divisors and equal shares of the board with players with lower numbers of stones being eliminated even if they have enough eyes.
5 players on 9x9 was cramped, 9 would’ve been horrible…
No you’re definitely right that draws are still possible on 13x13. A player can have made a living group that stays on the board after they’re eliminated.
