Sunday, December 13, 2009

Proposal: Admin Option 1

13-1, cannot be enacted w/o CoV -Darth

Adminned at 14 Dec 2009 05:14:57 UTC

In Rule 1.5 Enactment, immediately after the sentence:

Whenever an Admin marks a proposal, CfJ, or DoV as passed or failed, he must also mark his name, and report the final tally of votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).

add:

When reporting the vote tally, he should indicate the number of FOR votes followed by the number of AGAINST votes followed by the number of unresolved DEFERENTIAL votes, if any.

The way I’ve always seen it done.

Comments

Ornithopter:

12-13-2009 18:36:42 UTC

imperial
Do unresolved deferential votes need to be reported at all? They’re identical to people not voting. They don’t even count as votes for the “more than half of all votes” that need to be “for” when a proposal times out.

Hix:

12-13-2009 18:39:03 UTC

against Oh, please.  As long as it’s clear, it’s fine.  Case-by-case judgment of the admin suffices.

Josh:

12-13-2009 18:47:52 UTC

against per Hix.

Falkuon:

12-13-2009 19:00:16 UTC

against

Kevan:

12-13-2009 19:01:08 UTC

against “Report the final tally of votes” is fine. If an admin starts posting deliberately unclear voting tallies, we can deal with it.

SingularByte:

12-13-2009 19:20:17 UTC

against

Klisz:

12-13-2009 19:21:53 UTC

for

Klisz:

12-13-2009 19:22:09 UTC

Oops against  clicked the wrong button

Ienpw III:

12-13-2009 19:31:07 UTC

against

Bucky:

12-13-2009 19:35:25 UTC

against

tecslicer:

12-13-2009 20:32:44 UTC

against

Wakukee:

12-13-2009 20:40:25 UTC

Per hix. If it is clear, it doesn’t matter.

Klisz:

12-13-2009 21:54:49 UTC

Wak: You didn’t actually click the voting icon…

Darknight:

12-13-2009 22:21:25 UTC

against As I said before, show me a case where in anything RL things that were voted down were stated by the lower for votes first.

tecslicer:

12-13-2009 22:32:45 UTC

Well, I my church we always do the For, then the against, then the abstentions, so that is an example in RL, but Baptist business meetings have never been the epitome of proper parliamentary procedure.

Klisz:

12-14-2009 01:49:23 UTC

Also, people will get angry if you start dragging religion into BlogNomic. In any way.

Wakukee:

12-14-2009 02:42:50 UTC

lol against.

TrumanCapote:

12-14-2009 03:33:13 UTC

against