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:
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
scshunt:
Holding Consensus is not defined.
Josh: he/him
Purplebeard:
Skju:
I suppose someone will have to define Consensus. I can’t for another 14 hours.
nqeron:
?
nqeron:
Patrick:
Klisz:
quirck: he/him
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?
Larrytheturtle:
Larrytheturtle:
Larrytheturtle:
Murphy:
Spitemaster:
Clucky: he/him
scshunt: