Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Proposal: Cleaning up enactment

Times out at 3-7.

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.


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.



Hello Sailor:

10-22-2008 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


10-22-2008 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.


10-22-2008 18:59:31 UTC


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.


10-22-2008 19:09:38 UTC

against per HS

Clucky: “If a Clansman leaves the game or goes Idle, his Vote is no longer valid.”


10-22-2008 19:17:00 UTC

If it ain’t broke


10-22-2008 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.


10-22-2008 20:08:38 UTC

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


10-22-2008 22:44:36 UTC



10-22-2008 23:37:06 UTC



10-23-2008 08:57:52 UTC

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


10-23-2008 10:25:21 UTC



10-23-2008 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


10-24-2008 14:56:24 UTC