Thursday, February 02, 2006

Proposal: Barnacle-scraping

Timed out and passed, 3 votes to 2. Voter apathy sucks. Josh

Adminned at 05 Feb 2006 07:12:02 UTC

Arr, this has been bugging me since last dynasty.  If the Captain hasn’t voted, all Deferential votes become explicit votes of abstention, which still count as votes, so some wording needs to be fixed in Law 5 or in some cases the proposal cannot be enacted or failed since there is no majority of FOR or AGAINST votes. This change will also handle other voting types such as PARROT, or what have you.

Change:

If the oldest pending Proposal has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those votes being changed, or if all Swashbucklers have voted on it and it still cannot be Enacted, or if the Swashbuckler who proposed it has voted AGAINST it, or if it is more than 48 hours old and at least half of its votes are AGAINST, then any Admin Staff may mark that Proposal as Failed.

To:

If the oldest pending Proposal has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those votes being changed, or if all Swashbucklers have voted on it and it still cannot be Enacted, or if the Swashbuckler who proposed it has voted AGAINST it, or if it is more than 48 hours old and half or fewer of its votes are FOR, then any Admin Staff may mark that Proposal as Failed.

 

Comments

Kevan: he/him

03-02-2006 04:12:43 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

03-02-2006 04:13:11 UTC

Hm, does this mean we can remove “or if all Swashbucklers have voted on it and it still cannot be Enacted”?

smith:

03-02-2006 04:32:19 UTC

I forgot about that bit! I guess this fix wasn’t really needed.

predisastered:

03-02-2006 21:46:28 UTC

imperial

Igthorn:

03-02-2006 22:12:33 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

04-02-2006 16:24:58 UTC

against

Hix:

04-02-2006 23:27:19 UTC

PARROT

Banja:

04-02-2006 23:39:06 UTC

Well, there is a problem here. Is a deferential vote still counted as a vote if the Captain doesn’t vote?
It’s a vote of abstention, but that’s still a vote, right?

So, you could have:

Swashbucklers: 18
Quorum: 10

Votes
For: 2
Against: 2
Deferential: 6

And the proposal could neither be enacted nor failed.
Or would that fall under “If the oldest pending Proposal has enough AGAINST votes that it could not be Enacted without one of those votes being changed” ?

Banja:

04-02-2006 23:42:34 UTC

So, basically, what Smith said.
And I forgot to vote for

Excalabur:

05-02-2006 04:38:55 UTC

But that’s not the same thing at all—that’s treating all abstentions as AGAINST, which ain’t the case.

“fewer FOR than AGAINST” is the correct wording. against