Talk:327

From Nomicapolis

Current revision as of 21:02, 7 December 2006

Proposer's summary and declarations

I feel that sometimes you are neither for nor against, but you still want to vote. Also this will make the game we have now more steamlined as proposals can be ended when all have cast their votes. If the player(s) who wish to abstain has no other method of doing it than not to vote, then all proposals take 24 hours longer to pass.

Debate

Add comments Excellent idea. Two qualms, one trivial, one a bit more important. Trivial first: Fix the first spelling of "abstain" in the rule. Not so trivial: Take a gander at rule 311. The way your rule is worded, and the way 311 is worded, an abstention would still count as a de facto "against" vote. Applejuicefool 10:34, 24 November 2006 (EST)

I agree with Applejuicefool, this proposal should be an amendment to 311. --TomFoolery 11:01, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Dayd fixed the spelling issue. Applejuicefool 20:36, 24 November 2006 (EST)

What if it said that the vote of abstain would count toward the Quorum and toward Player activity. This rules supercedes 311. --Dayd 15:58, 25 November 2006 (EST)

See, I still don't think that would fix the problem. This rule doesn't directly conflict with 311, so superceding it wouldn't mean anything. What you need to do is say that abstentions count as votes for quorum and player activity, but do not count as votes for determining the outcome of the vote. Applejuicefool 20:48, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Or, change the proposal to be an amendment of 311, by saying something like; "A rule change is adopted if a simple majority of the total votes "for" and "against" are "for." Abstention is permissible, a voter who votes "abstain" counts toward quorum, but not towards determining majority." --TomFoolery 21:35, 25 November 2006 (EST)

I in light of discussion I think I have to change the proposal quite a lot. I will have to ammend rule 310 first. I will propose an ammendment to rule 310, then this rule can be passed.--Shivan 07:01, 27 November 2006 (EST)

There, now it is ammeded. "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on."--Shivan 11:44, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Vote

For

Add FOR vote

1. --Shivan 11:44, 4 December 2006 (EST)
2. --Tucana25 13:27, 4 December 2006 (EST)
3. Applejuicefool 14:59, 4 December 2006 (EST)
4. --Simulacrum 21:32, 4 December 2006 (EST)
5. Chuck 19:13, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. --TomFoolery 16:02, 7 December 2006 (EST)
2. --Dayd 14:03, 6 December 2006 (EST) (because I can't abstain yet?)