Because the second option is logistically quicker for pretty much the same result. “Refusal” in such a system is to just pass it to someone else.

i disagree that there’s a meaningful logistical time difference, and this stops a hix ii aaron problem

What is the meaningful use case that this is fixing? This has only happened once, years ago.

Tepid

To check what this proposal is doing, am I right that most of this is shuffling sentences around and that this is a straight vote on whether to

* Add an acceptance/refusal mechanic for mantle passing, or
* Tweak the current mantle pass sentence from “the Nobleman” to “Louis XIV” to allow the recipient to pass the role again if they don’t want it?

And you’re presenting this as an “enact version 1, or enact version 2 if it reaches EVC quorum by the time the proposal enacts” decision?

  because the latter seems fine to me, but I don’t want this to hit quorum-FOR but not quorum-EVC. Will CoV if that changes.

I don’t think “but what if someone thoughtlessly passes the mantle to someone who doesn’t want it, and that second person idles out?” is a pressing question, any more than similar and equally unlikely situations of “but what if the winner idles”, “what if the recipient accepts it but changes their mind and idles”, “what if the Emperor offers the mantle and leaves, and the recipient then refuses”, etc.

Possible tripwire: What happens if an Emperor “attempts to pass” the role to three different people (at once, before anyone has refused), and they all accept it?

Main vote is to more logically structure the rule (it currently mentions Ascension Addresses before defining what they are which is silly) and make multiple transfers allowable.

Attempts to pass would require a separate post for each attempt, so the last attempt would rescind the previous two. “First in best dressed” is a pretty lousy way to transfer anyway.

As far as quorum-EVC goes, that probably should have been “a majority of EVCs” rather than a Quorum. I’m not especially fond of this form of additional voting nowadays, but I needed something a little more substantive than an inclusive Slack conversation.

*inconclusive

Majority of EVCs tilts the other way, of course: the proposal could reach enactment quorum with 7 FOR and 4 EVCs, even if nine players hated the EVC.

I suppose the single-Emperor “may be headed by a single Nobleman, known as the Louis XIV” effect stops three people becoming Emperor, but I’m not sure the order of precedence is clear: does the second acceptance overrule the first, or fizzle because accepting would create a second illegal Emperor?

    Bloggam’s Razor.

 
Same logic as Kevan, for both icons. A Quorum of EVCs means 8, right? Not just a majority of the EVCs? “Quorum” is a bit confusing to me.

Yeah, “If the word Quorum is used without qualifying which subset of Noblemen it is referring to, it is referring to a Quorum of all Noblemen.”

Wrote up the clause into a separate proposal (Hot potato emperors), to reduce conflation of interests.

CoV  

FYI: Imperial Deferentials is inactive. Josh’s Def vote essentially turns all Def votes into non-votes.

(Except that their up arrows still apply.)

Aside from removing the “one transfer only” impediment, this proposal restructures this part of the rule in a way I rather like, by moving the optional part (passing the Mantle) to the end and not referring to Ascension Addresses before explaining what they are.

Not really sure about the acceptance/refusal part, but it seems too unpopular to pass anyway.

Change of Implied Vote:   

Anyone who was waiting on Arrow Quorum to vote for should do so now.

Ah, now I understand the point of those AGAINST votes.

  CoV. Yes, the reorg is good.

COV  

8-3, so far, by my count. Go put this present under the tree, because it’s all wrapped up!