Friday, October 09, 2009

Proposal: Fixing unanimous ambiguity

Timed out and passed, 6-5. Yuri gains 10 points. Josh

Adminned at 11 Oct 2009 03:33:04 UTC

If the word “unanimously” exists in the rule Points, then replace it with “with no votes against”.

As unanimous can mean either “with no against votes”, or “with only for votes”

Comments

Bucky:

10-09-2009 03:04:15 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

10-09-2009 03:07:41 UTC

for

Excalabur:

10-09-2009 03:10:35 UTC

for

Klisz:

10-09-2009 03:54:44 UTC

for

Darknight:

10-09-2009 04:34:42 UTC

for

arthexis:

10-09-2009 05:45:28 UTC

for

Kevan:

10-09-2009 08:03:23 UTC

for

Josh:

10-09-2009 08:27:10 UTC

for

Josh:

10-09-2009 08:29:18 UTC

COV:  against The rule says “passes unanimously”; if the proposal has all against votes then it doesn’t pass. Also, I don’t want you get 10 points for passing this needless proposal.

Kevan:

10-09-2009 09:35:41 UTC

against CoV. Good point, I may as well vote the same as on the proposal this is fixing - either they both fail or both pass.

Shem:

10-09-2009 10:17:12 UTC

against Well noticed.

ais523:

10-09-2009 12:35:00 UTC

imperial

Ienpw III:

10-09-2009 16:25:14 UTC

Josh: unanimous can be interpreted as either “with all FOR votes” or “with no AGAINST votes”. This proposal clears up ambiguity with DEF “votes” of abstention.

arthexis:

10-10-2009 07:37:26 UTC

CoV against

Excalabur:

10-11-2009 10:22:31 UTC

against