Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Proposal: Cleaning up enactment

Times out at 3-7.
-Purplebeard

Adminned at 24 Oct 2008 14:07:03 UTC

In rule 1.5 “Enactment”, change:

It has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those votes being changed.

to:

It has AGAINST votes equal to greater than Quorum.

Assume that all players vote on a proposal either FOR or AGAINST.  Quorum is always slightly more than half of the current population, so if there are a Quorum of AGAINSTs, there cannot be a Quorum of FORs, nor can there be a Quorum of AGAINSTs and have more than half of the votes be FORs. Either way, this is just a simpler way of stating the same thing.

 

posted by Rodney at 22 Oct 2008 17:39:00 UTC Comments (13)

Comments

Hello Sailor:

22-10-2008 18:08:27 UTC

It’s not equivalent to the current wording, but I note that it does err on the side of being extra certain that there is no chance of Enactment without a change of vote (for example: with 16 clansmen and a quorum of 9, the current system allows for failing a proposal after 8 AGAINST votes, but the revision would require 10).  I don’t really know if this is worth the simpler wording imperial

Kevan: he/him

22-10-2008 18:30:22 UTC

for It’ll occasionally slow the queue down by a few hours, but I’m always in favour of simpler wording.

Clucky: he/him

22-10-2008 18:59:31 UTC

against

Suppose someone votes on an unenacted proposal and then goes idle. Couldn’t that result in both quorum of for *and* against votes? The current wording makes it impossible for a proposal to both be passable and failable, and should stay that way.

Yoda:

22-10-2008 19:09:38 UTC

against per HS

Clucky: “If a Clansman leaves the game or goes Idle, his Vote is no longer valid.”

spikebrennan:

22-10-2008 19:17:00 UTC

If it ain’t broke
against

Kevan: he/him

22-10-2008 19:27:49 UTC

against  against CoV - a proposal being both passable and failable (and judged at the whim of the enacting admin) is a problem.

Rodney:

22-10-2008 20:08:38 UTC

Like Yoda said, Rule 1.4 makes sure that two opposing quorums can’t happen.

Rodlen:

22-10-2008 22:44:36 UTC

against

arthexis: he/him

22-10-2008 23:37:06 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

23-10-2008 08:57:52 UTC

for  for CoV again; sorry, too much multitasking, I must have been thinking of something else.

Purplebeard:

23-10-2008 10:25:21 UTC

for

Bucky:

23-10-2008 15:30:51 UTC

against .  There have been past dynasties in which certain proposals of special types could pass even if there was a quorum of against votes on them (by redefining ‘vote’ for these special proposals).  If we ever do that again, your proposed change would cause problems

Xaxyx:

24-10-2008 14:56:24 UTC

against