Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Proposal: No solo passes

Timed out 3-3.—Kevan

Adminned at 03 Aug 2006 05:39:20 UTC

Modify the rule titled “Enactment” as follows.

Replace the text

It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.

with

It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.

and insert a bullet between bullets 4 and 5 with the following text.

It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours and has fewer than 2 valid votes.

 

posted by Thelonious at 01 Aug 2006 07:18:01 UTC Comments (13)

Comments

Shadowclaw:

01-08-2006 10:33:28 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

01-08-2006 11:27:04 UTC

for

Bucky:

01-08-2006 15:44:55 UTC

Malfunctions if thre’s one for and a bunch of imperial s. 
against !

Nice to see someone else propose something, though.

Hix:

01-08-2006 18:26:47 UTC

against

Saki:

02-08-2006 04:13:27 UTC

imperial

Kevan: he/him

02-08-2006 04:43:12 UTC

The malfunction isn’t serious - the admin can add or change their vote, or the Arbiter can veto, if a proposal becomes deadlocked. I’d rather see this loophole fixed quickly.

Thelonious:

02-08-2006 09:34:15 UTC

Bucky or Kevan - could you explain the malfunction?

TAE:

02-08-2006 12:28:49 UTC

Aren’t Imperial votes valid votes? imperial

Kevan: he/him

02-08-2006 14:14:07 UTC

Actually, I can’t see the malfunction I assumed Bucky was referring to - such proposals could still be failed if they’d been “open for voting for at least 48 hours and half or fewer of its votes are FOR”.

Bucky? Hix?

Thelonious:

02-08-2006 14:22:03 UTC

Hix - I’m particularly keen to know why you’ve voted against because your vote currently carries a weight of 3.

Bucky:

02-08-2006 17:30:52 UTC

Either IMPERIALs do count as valid votes in which case it fails, or they do not in which case it STILL fails.  We seem to assume the latter at the moment.

Saki:

02-08-2006 20:36:39 UTC

It seems that imperials are only valid when the arbiter has voted. Otherwise an imperial is counted as a vote of abstinence.

I think what Bucky means is… One for vote and one imperial vote would make the proposal fail, whether it’s counted or not.

Kevan: he/him

03-08-2006 05:56:20 UTC

If IMPERIALs count as valid votes then it can be failed for being “open for voting for at least 48 hours and half or fewer of its votes are FOR”.

But even if there’s some nuance that I’ve missed here, this is a very obscure malfunction, and one that can be unblocked with a veto if it ever comes up. Better to plug the loophole and tidy things up afterwards, than to leave it unplugged while we sort out a cleaner wording.