Monday, January 28, 2013

Proposal: Opposed Coalescence

Enacted 13-0. -scshunt

Adminned at 29 Jan 2013 19:14:37 UTC

Append to Rule 2.6.1 (“Party Consensus”):

If a Party in power qualifies to hold Consensus over a Proposal, and if the Proposal author’s Party and/or another Party in power qualify/ies to hold Consensus over the Proposal, then whichever Party has the value of [total Party EVCs / (Party EVCs FOR - Party EVCs AGAINST)] farthest from 0 holds Consensus over the Proposal. If more than one Party still qualify to hold Consensus over the Proposal, then the author’s Party holds Consensus over the Proposal.

Tiebreaking.

posted by Skju at 28 Jan 2013 02:19:36 UTC Comments (18)

Comments

Skju:

28-01-2013 02:53:25 UTC

for  arrow
Raichu, I’m looking at you, as my vote doesn’t count for Consensus (which could be slightly ambiguous in the rules)...

RaichuKFM: she/her

28-01-2013 03:01:42 UTC

for  arrow

scshunt:

28-01-2013 03:13:51 UTC

Holding Consensus is not defined.

Josh: he/they

28-01-2013 08:46:26 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

28-01-2013 09:27:11 UTC

imperial

Skju:

28-01-2013 13:03:15 UTC

I suppose someone will have to define Consensus. I can’t for another 14 hours.

nqeron:

28-01-2013 15:23:48 UTC

?

nqeron:

28-01-2013 15:23:59 UTC

imperial

Patrick:

28-01-2013 17:51:41 UTC

for

Klisz:

28-01-2013 18:25:11 UTC

for  arrow

quirck: he/him

28-01-2013 18:55:16 UTC

Does it resolve the case when two parties in power A and B qualify to hold consensus, A has m FOR and n AGAINST, B has n FOR and m AGAINST, and the author does not belong to either A or B?
imperial

Larrytheturtle:

28-01-2013 20:42:11 UTC

for

Larrytheturtle:

28-01-2013 20:43:02 UTC

for

Larrytheturtle:

28-01-2013 20:43:15 UTC

for

Murphy:

28-01-2013 23:26:33 UTC

for  arrow

Spitemaster:

29-01-2013 16:32:00 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

29-01-2013 18:45:39 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

30-01-2013 03:14:04 UTC

for