It seems to me that if one person votes “for”, and no one else has voted, then the number of “for” votes exceeds quorum, and could be enacted after just one vote without waiting 48 hours. Thus, if an Admin likes a proposal, e could vote “for” and pass the proposal before anyone else has a chance to see it.

Too many worms in this can.

not true doremi, that would only happen if everyone else HAS voted on a more recent proposal, since you can only enact the most recent proposal

This rules only effect is to punnish people who chose not to vote on older proposals by dropping them from the quorum for them, and only if they have been here to vote on newer ones.  I dont see any problems, but would like to know what they are if there are any.

Clearly I meant the oldest not the most recent in that last comment.

Oh.  (changed from above)

Actually I’ll change my vote too, I want to see those core rules amended. 

because I would want the Coach to tell us if this is too hard to adminster.

its actually only optionally harder than what we have now, since nothing forces the admins to admin a proposal.  It gives them the option to do so earlier if they want to do the manual work to verify non-voters

At least thats how I intended it.

CDG

no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no.  Major game-breaking scam alert!

Irk.

Ok, in all seriousness, im not trying a gamebreaking scam here, so what is it?  Voting down a proposal for game breaking scam is laudable, but can yoiu at least let me know what it is?  So I can avoid it in the future.

Thanks

ChinDoGu:The one I see is that it’s already possible to mess with the order of Proposals in the queue;  With this, it’s too easy to rush through a proposal in 12 hours regardless of the state of the queue.

                  No.

say what?  How can you mess with the order?  And if I was to fix it so you could no longer do wso would you thern be in favor of this?

Anyway, what is this “current proposal queue” you mention?  And the rule references the proposal “being enacted” ... but ... if a proposal is being enacted, isn’t it too late to worry about what quorum is?  And what if a proposal itself makes some reference to Quorum?  I doubt its author intends for Olympians who just happened to not vote either way on the proposal to be excluded (but only if they vote on some other proposal).

Mostly, though, I just don’t like the idea of this proposal.  Sometimes, I fail to vote on a proposal because I want to let some comments build up and read them before casting a vote.  I don’t vote in the meantime, because I don’t want to accedentally set off the “Quorum of FOR votes” or “Enough AGAINST votes that it could not be enacted” clauses in Rule 1.5.

Basically, if my whole 48 hours window for voting isn’t open to me, I feel cheated if it was closed without good reason.  Self-kill and VETO are good reasons.  A Quorum of ALL active Olympians in agreement that the proposal should pass or fail (okay, Quorum minus one for failing when the total number of Olympians is even) is good reason.  But a small handful (say, only 2 or 3) of Olympians having voted is a horrible reason to close the window on all the rest of us that haven’t voted.  Imagine a complicated proposal “reaching Quorum (2-0)” after 12 hours just because there has been a more recent spam proposal that everyone quickly voted AGAINST.

Ok thats fair hix, this probarbly at least needs a reword.  I do however think this is adressing a real problem.  I don’t mind people not voting immediatly on a proposal as they want to wait for comments, but letting an old proposal that is quite simple clog up the queue simply because people have not voted on it is worse IMHO.  And long experience has shown that a large percentage of proposals will time out, simply from lack of meeting quorum

Err. So ..