Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Call for Judgment: What can change the nature of the quorum

Fails 0-10. -scshunt

Adminned at 29 Jan 2013 14:19:56 UTC

Throwing up this CfJ to avoid an edit war on Proposal: Recalibrate. scshunt vetoed and and adminned it; I unadminned it on the basis that the speedy veto hasn’t passed yet; he re-adminned in on the basis that “a quorum of EVCs contained arrows”. I only see two arrows; quorum is currently 8; one of us is being dense. Who?

If this proposal is enacted then reopen Proposal: Recalibrate for voting. Make any proposals made illegal due to slot limits due to this change legal.

posted by Josh at 29 Jan 2013 17:41:55 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

scshunt:

29-01-2013 17:58:15 UTC

From the glossary:

Quorum
Quorum of a subset of Honourable Members is half the number of Honourable Members in that subset, rounded down, plus one. If the word Quorum is used without qualifying which subset of Honourable Members it is referring to, it is referring to a Quorum of all Honourable Members.

From the rule “Unanimous Consent”:

If the EVCs of a Quorum of the Honourable Members who have valid Votes on a given Proposal contain the ARROW icon, then that proposal may be resolved by any Admin notwithstanding that it is not the oldest pending Proposal.

Recalibrate had three EVCs, and two of those had arrows, so the Quorum was indeed met.

scshunt:

29-01-2013 17:59:19 UTC

As such, against

Klisz:

29-01-2013 18:09:08 UTC

against

Spitemaster:

29-01-2013 18:21:14 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

29-01-2013 18:21:31 UTC

Huh. It was me who was being daft. Fair enough!

against

Isn’t that quite abusable though?

scshunt:

29-01-2013 18:40:09 UTC

Possibly. What’s a good nomic without scambait rules?

Clucky: he/him

29-01-2013 18:52:19 UTC

It basically just gives scshunt a speedy veto in some cases. You can’t pass anything before 12 hours still. But yeah, the whole rule still sucks and this is just another instance of why it sucks.

nqeron:

29-01-2013 19:10:19 UTC

against

quirck: he/him

29-01-2013 19:22:33 UTC

against

Murphy:

29-01-2013 20:03:18 UTC

against

Patrick:

29-01-2013 20:05:28 UTC

against

Larrytheturtle:

29-01-2013 20:10:38 UTC

against

RaichuKFM: she/her

29-01-2013 20:44:33 UTC

against 12 hour veto =/= insta-veto. And the Speedy-ness needs to be supported by at least half of all who voted on it, so I don’t see how its so bad.

Cpt_Koen:

29-01-2013 21:53:40 UTC

Beeeecause it means we still have to vote on a vetoed Proposal to support or unsupport the speeding, even though its fate has been decided already?

RaichuKFM: she/her

29-01-2013 22:09:25 UTC

I meant its not that powerful as Clucky is making it out to be.