Monday, September 04, 2017

Call for Judgment: Its Obviously Supposed to be Instead of, not in Addtion to

popular 5-1 enacted by card

Adminned at 06 Sep 2017 16:24:17 UTC

Change:

A UN Resolution is only Popular if it has a Support that equals or exceeds UN Quorum, and is only Unpopular if it has an Opposition that equals or exceeds UN Quorum, or if it has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and is not Popular.

To:

A UN Resolution is Popular if it has a Support that equals or exceeds UN Quorum, and is Unpopular if it has an Opposition that equals or exceeds UN Quorum, or if it has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and is not Popular.

 

It should be obvious that UN resolution conditions are meant to replace popularity requirements, not be in addition to them. If they were in addition to them, no one would ever use a UN resolution. Additionally, the wording is only ambiguous, not a positive mistake.

posted by derrick at 04 Sep 2017 20:32:00 UTC Comments (8)

Comments

Madrid:

04-09-2017 20:37:48 UTC

for

Sesquipedalian:

04-09-2017 20:47:56 UTC

for

card:

04-09-2017 21:12:40 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

05-09-2017 08:42:05 UTC

Isn’t removing “only” doing the opposite of what you’re saying in the flavour text?

derrick: he/him

05-09-2017 12:51:15 UTC

No. I think its one step closer. Though perhaps I should have gone full on mathematical proof mode and written “If and Only If”.

Thunder: he/him

05-09-2017 21:35:40 UTC

The if thing can get proposals Popular and Unpopular. I would be OK with the iff proposal, though.
against

pokes:

05-09-2017 23:29:48 UTC

I have the same concern as Thunder, and this has a proposal-y flavor, but for

derrick: he/him

06-09-2017 12:01:07 UTC

It was made a call for judgement because

1) It was to clear up a rule misinterpretation
2) At the time, timing appeared to be important because this could pass before the UN resolutions in the Queue.

Anyway, its reached Quorum. I’ll write an IFF version as a proposal though.