Seems interesting, but I don’t know…

The second paragraph causes some contradictions and weird interactions if multiple Parties have Leadership Candidates. The last sentence also doesn’t specify that the Hon. Member with higher Credibility should belong to the same party as the Leadership Candidates.

Furthermore, the usage of the word ‘effect’ in the third paragraph renders that sentence impotent (or potentially hilarious if a single Party manages to acquire a quorum of members) and probably can’t be corrected as an obvious typo.

I think effect/affect is a common enough typo that it can be corrected as a typo.

The second paragraph bugs I’ll grant you, but it seems easier to fix then repropose…

I’m a bit apprehensive about correcting a typo when the ‘faulty’ sentence is perfectly coherent and has a valid (if strange) interpretation, but I won’t challenge the correction here.

As for the proposal itself, it seems needlessly complicated to me. I’d much prefer a simpler definition of Party Leader (for example, whoever has the highest Credibility score becomes Leader and remains so until someone else beats their score) and a separate mechanism that facilitates intra-party rivalries.

I like the three-line whip though, even though right now it means that a Party with four members can reach quorum by itself.

“weight” isn’t defined, is it?

Except in the common English usage sense.

But we define passing and failing by the number of votes. There is no “weight”.

Sure. Doubtless this is also a matter for future proposals. I find it clear enough what the rule means but accept it’s not immune to challenge.

If you think it would make their vote count double, how does that affect Quorum? Would you count quorum as a majority of players (in which case a weighted vote is incredibly powerful since it can allow a proposal to Quorum early) or a majority of available weight? If the latter, on what basis?

“This does not [a]ffect quorum”

Still, I think the effect is meaningless, because we enact/fail a proposal based only on the number of votes. Regardless of what you mean, the text of the rules is quite clear, and until the rules say otherwise, weight is meaningless.

You could change this by Deliberation, though.

Having had milling it over, not really a fan.

I’m not against it conceptually but i think there is enough wrong with it that re-proposing it would be a better option then to pass it and correct it

Leadership seems too complicated for what it does, and weight is weakly-defined. Moreover, this propsal doesn’t serve a very interesting purpose.

(In response to reproposing and fixes: that’s what Deliberations are for.)

Seems to me like leadership basically doubling the weight of your party is a bad idea.