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.

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/him

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