Thursday, July 15, 2010

Call for Judgment: Quorum issue.

Reaches Quorum at 1-0 and is Enacted. - lilomar

Adminned at 15 Jul 2010 12:03:58 UTC

Issue, simply by referring to a quorum of @s with a specific attribute, anyone may reduce quorum to an arbitrary number, down to one.

If a Quorum of @s with over 100 deaths posts the phrase “not likely” to this CFJ, nothing special happens. Note that Quorum is now 0/2+1, or 1.

Reasoning:
1) The Definition of Quorum in rule 3.1 states

If a Rule or other Gamestate document refers to a Quorum of some subset of @s (such as a Quorum of @s who share a particular Gamestate attribute, but excluding all other @s) then Quorum is equal to half the number of @s who share that Gamestate attribute, rounded down, plus one.

2) This CfJ is a Gamestate document, and refers to a Quorum of a subset of @s. (specifically, @‘s with over 20 deaths)
3) Quorum is equal to half the number of @s who share that Gamestate attribute (0), rounded down (still 0), plus one (1).

Therefore do the following:
Create a dynastic rule, entitled “Game, Set, Match” with the text

lilomar has achieved victory.

The amend the definition of Quorum in rule 3.1 from

If a Rule or other Gamestate document refers to a Quorum of some subset of @s (such as a Quorum of @s who share a particular Gamestate attribute, but excluding all other @s) then Quorum is equal to half the number of @s who share that Gamestate attribute, rounded down, plus one.

to

If a Rule or other Gamestate document refers to a Quorum of some subset of @s (such as a Quorum of @s who share a particular Gamestate attribute, but excluding all other @s) then, for the purposes of that reference, Quorum is equal to half the number of @s who share that Gamestate attribute, rounded down, plus one.

Comments

Purplebeard:

15-07-2010 19:01:02 UTC

Illegally adminned: the author of a CfJ does not automatically vote FOR.

Purplebeard:

15-07-2010 19:03:38 UTC

Never mind. Apparently, they do.