Thursday, January 31, 2013

Proposal: Holding Consensus

Self-killed. -scshunt

Adminned at 01 Feb 2013 11:58:35 UTC

Append to the first paragraph of Rule 2.6.1 (“Party Consensus”):

The Party that exerts the above-explained control over the vote of DEFERENTIAL is said to hold Consensus over the Proposal in question.

Remove the last sentence of the second paragraph of Rule 2.6.1 (“Party Consensus”) and append:

If more than one Party still qualify to hold Consensus over the Proposal, then the author’s Party holds Consensus over the Proposal if it qualifies to do so. Otherwise, no Party holds Consensus over it.

A little fix. Holding Consensus, now defined, could be used elsewhere.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

31-01-2013 08:16:12 UTC

against In favour of scshunt’s later proposal.

Purplebeard:

31-01-2013 11:37:21 UTC

against

RaichuKFM: she/her

31-01-2013 12:08:15 UTC

against The fraction in the Ruleset is broken.

Patrick:

31-01-2013 12:41:22 UTC

against

nqeron:

31-01-2013 14:44:38 UTC

against per Josh

Spitemaster:

31-01-2013 16:08:00 UTC

against

Klisz:

31-01-2013 23:34:11 UTC

against

Skju:

01-02-2013 01:12:44 UTC

against Self-Kill