Saturday, April 16, 2011

Call for Judgment: Mind. Blown.

Quorum of against votes -Darth

Adminned at 16 Apr 2011 19:29:38 UTC

I just adminned I Can See Your Hairy Back. It had timed out and the voting on it was 7-4-4. I was half-way through unthinkingly passing it, until I realised that by a strict interpretation of the ruleset it actually failed - enactment calls for “a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum”, while failure requires that “half or fewer of its Votes are FOR”. Had the emperor voted those DEFs could have gone onto one pile or the other, but because he didn’t they weighted the stack against the proposal by default.

This means that in a time-out situation an unresolved DEF is effectively a vote AGAINST, rather than a true abstention. I’m in two minds as to whether that’s a desirable outcome or not, but I thought I should raise it anyway. This is the first time that the situation has come up for me, so I wasn’t sure whether it was known and explicit.

If this CfJ passes, change the following in the end of the second bullet in the first bulleted list in rule1.5:

from

more than half of its Votes are FOR

to

it has more FOR votes than AGAINST

And also the second bullet in the second bulleted list in rule 1.5, change

half or fewer of its Votes are FOR

to

the number of FOR votes cast on it is equal to, or fewer than, the number of AGAINST votes

Additionally, enact Proposal: I Can See Your Hairy Back.

Comments

ais523:

04-16-2011 07:17:52 UTC

Is an unresolved DEF actually a vote at all? 1.4 says that unresolved DEFs have no effect except to possibly void earlier votes by the same person.

Josh:

04-16-2011 07:27:57 UTC

Rule 1.4 is pretty explicit: “A Vote of DEFERENTIAL is a Vote of no opinion.”

Josh:

04-16-2011 07:28:46 UTC

Oh, hold up. “If no Chairsheep has Voted on a Proposal, a Vote of DEFERENTIAL on that proposal does not count as a Vote for the purposes of rule 1.5.”

My bad. Ignore this, apologies.
against

ais523:

04-16-2011 07:29:41 UTC

against I think everyone’s on the same page now, thus the CFJ is unnecessary.

scshunt:

04-16-2011 14:48:53 UTC

against

Chivalrybean:

04-16-2011 15:11:31 UTC

against

Kevan:

04-16-2011 15:35:58 UTC

against

Winner:

04-16-2011 15:58:00 UTC

against

lilomar:

04-16-2011 16:20:05 UTC

against

Darknight:

04-16-2011 19:25:45 UTC

against

Bucky:

04-16-2011 19:44:39 UTC

against

Travis:

04-16-2011 20:17:00 UTC

against

spikebrennan:

04-16-2011 22:18:29 UTC

against

Klisz:

04-17-2011 02:28:27 UTC

against