Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Proposal: Proposal: Barhah

3-4. Timed out. I still don’t know what a Barhah is.—Chronos

Adminned at 04 Nov 2005 15:31:13 UTC

I propose that the Rule be changed to read:-

1.4 Voting

Any Deity may cast eir Vote on a Pending Proposal by declaring it in the comments of the entry. Valid votes are FOR, AGAINST, and DEFERENTIAL, which must be represented by appropriate icons. Additionally, a Deity may cast a vote of NULLIFY, which destroys every vote of eirs on that proposal.  When a Deity votes NULLIFY eir vote is also removed from any count towards quorum, it is as if e has not yet voted. It also must be represented by it’s appropriate icon.

If there exists more than one Vote from a single Deity on a single Proposal, only the most recent of those Votes is counted. If a Deity leaves the game or goes idle, eir Vote no longer counts. The NULLIFY, and any other vote, have no effect after a proposal has been Passed or Failed.

A vote of DEFERENTIAL is a vote of no opinion, or of faith in the decision of the Archon. The vote will count as the same as the Archon’s vote. The Archon cannot cast a vote of DEFERENTIAL. If there is no Archon, a vote of DEFERENTIAL counts as an explicit vote of abstention.

If the Deity who made a Proposal has not cast an explicit Vote on it, eir Vote is counted as FOR.

This proposal will not go into effect when enacted.  It will only go into effect when an icon for the NULLIFY vote has been created and approved in a subsequent proposal.

[This is basically the same thing as an extend debate option, if a player wants to stop something from passing.  It’s a more decisive option than allowing a player to abstain when we still have the DEFERENTIAL option, which was something I advocated in the past. 

As for the icon, I was thinking something blue or orange with the same size border as the current icons, and a “?’ in the center.]

 

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

11-03-2005 00:38:48 UTC

for What is Barhah?

Rodney:

11-03-2005 02:49:32 UTC

against

Excalabur:

11-03-2005 03:27:14 UTC

against Good idea, I don’t know about the wording.  It’s an un-vote, but this makes it sound complicated.

TrumanCapote:

11-03-2005 03:58:38 UTC

The only problem with an un-vote was that I couldn’t find a way to word it that didn’t allow for an ambiguity about the passage of proposals.  (Does an unvote on a proposal mean it didn’t pass if the vote margins shift against passage?)

But I think I fixed that by explicitly barring that.  How else could I edit it? 

If you’d like to have a go at it, by all means do, I’d appreciate it.

Excalabur:

11-03-2005 04:56:34 UTC

I’d just add a vote of ‘NULL’, which is an explicit no-vote.

TrumanCapote:

11-03-2005 05:10:57 UTC

Ah.  I prefer the un-vote, the vote retraction, when one feels discussion is needed on a topic, but a certain vote would add to quorum which would cause the proposal to go the other way.

A NO VOTE is close enough to the DEF vote that I think it useless.

Excalabur:

11-03-2005 05:20:05 UTC

Well, sure.  a vote of ‘not a vote, doesn’t count towards quorum’, then.

Kevan:

11-03-2005 11:51:39 UTC

against Eh, if you want extended debate, just vote “AGAINST” and keep the queue moving. (And if voting AGAINST wouldn’t stop anything, then nullifying your vote wouldn’t either.)

Hix:

11-03-2005 15:31:00 UTC

against

smith:

11-03-2005 15:39:36 UTC

for I think RETRACT would be a better word.

Excalabur:

11-04-2005 15:43:42 UTC

And it’s not a rule, it’s a law.  ‘law 4’. 

I wish there was a way to turn off the autonumbering of section in the wiki.