Friday, October 24, 2008

Proposal: Just imagine I made a hilarious pun in this title

Times out, 8-1.—Rodney.

Adminned at 26 Oct 2008 18:02:57 UTC

Add to rule 1.4:

If no Patriarch has voted on a proposal, a vote of DEFERENTIAL on that proposal does not count as a vote for the purposes of rule 1.5.

I made a mistake when adminning this proposal (besides miscounting the votes). If the votes had been 6-5 with 2 deferentials, it still wouldn’t have met the requirements to pass (less than half its counted votes were FOR), which seems odd. One might argue that, since “The vote will count as the same as the Patriarch’s vote”, deferentials would count as no vote if the Patriarch didn’t vote, but this reasoning is shaky at best. Even assuming this argument holds, I feel it’s best to state it explicitly, if only to prevent this problem from coming up during a metadynasty where there is no Patriarch.

posted by Purplebeard at 24 Oct 2008 21:20:00 UTC Comments (14)

Comments

Yoda:

24-10-2008 21:53:57 UTC

for seems good

arthexis: he/him

24-10-2008 22:03:18 UTC

for Not 100% sure, tho.

arthexis: he/him

24-10-2008 22:05:35 UTC

against No wait, CoV: This proposal is incorrect as it doesn’t reference the rule it is changing by full name and number (just by number is not enough)

Yoda:

25-10-2008 03:25:00 UTC

against ah, COV

Bucky:

25-10-2008 03:26:17 UTC

for .  Arthexis’s objection is a non-issue.  The proposal merely has to say which rule it modifies in an unambiguous manner.

Yoda:

25-10-2008 03:29:55 UTC

for COV

eh, the rule does say “may be referred to”, implying that you don’t have to use that standard

Rodlen:

25-10-2008 04:37:28 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

25-10-2008 08:21:10 UTC

imperial

Althoguh this does make for slightly confusing wording with “If there is no Patriarch, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention.” in the previous sentence of Rule 1.4.

Qapmoc:

25-10-2008 11:46:03 UTC

for

Dustin:

25-10-2008 16:02:03 UTC

for

arthexis: he/him

25-10-2008 16:40:22 UTC

Oh, ok COV for

Hello Sailor:

25-10-2008 19:22:22 UTC

against This is fine, but it should replace the ruletext “If there is no Patriarch, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention.”

With both this line and the proposed line, which would it be?  Would it count as a vote of abstention, or would it not count as a vote for the purposes of Rule 1.5?

Kevan: he/him

26-10-2008 19:36:43 UTC

I’d say it would count as a vote for the purposes of everything except Rule 1.5. Not broken, just untidy.

Clucky: he/him

26-10-2008 23:24:06 UTC

votes of abstention do not count as votes for the purpose of rule 1.5…  for