Talk:Decisions of the Judge
From Nomicapolis
| (19 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | {| border="2" cellpadding="4" style="text-align:left" align="right" | |
| + | ! '''Archived Discussion''' | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | [[Talk:Decisions of the Judge/Dec06|Decisions of the Judge/Dec06]] | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | |} | ||
| - | I request a | + | I request a Judgement on whether Proposal 357 should have failed. According to Rule [[326]], section 2, a proposal in those set of circumstances is 'dismissed', and it is not clear whether this is the same as failing for the purposes of scoring. Should [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] have lost 10 points? --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 06:05, 5 January 2007 (EST) |
| - | + | == [[378]] vote == | |
| - | I request | + | I request judgement on whether BobTHJ properly closed the voting of [[378]]. [[109]] states that the vote needed to be "unanimous among the eligible voters". I believe that several voters were Active at the beginning of the voting period who did not vote, so the vote cannot have passed. I'm uncertain, under [[372]], whether the vote should have been held open for 14 days or if it can be closed as failing once Quorum has been met and 48 hours have passed since the last vote, but I don't believe Quorum has been met in any case, and if it has I believe the result should be Failed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 20:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT) |
| - | + | ||
| - | :: | + | -- I overlooked Rule #109 when determining if voting was complete. However, all active voters has voted at the time I closed voting (since I had just made everyone else inactive), so it's a tough call. My apologies for not being more cautious. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 20:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | ==Quorum== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Chuck has become active since the recent proposals [[393]], [[394]], [[395]] were opened for voting. While rule [[362]] says he is not an eligible voter, it is ambiguous if Chuck becoming an active player increases quorum from 2 votes to 3 per rule [[371]]. I request judgment on the current value of Quorum. | ||
| + | :I'll try to get to this tomorrow...i just got home and want to spend awhile looking the rules to make sure i properly interpret the situation. Thank you for bringing this to attention. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :: I believe this point is moot, as all 3 of those proposals require a unanimous vote among players who were Active when they were brought to vote. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::: Indeed it is, and I figured it would be, however it would be nice to have a ruling anyway should the situation arise in the future. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 10:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==[[393]],[[395]]== | ||
| + | Before I score these 2, I'd like clarification on whether Darus67 should have been required to vote For both of these for them to pass. I think the rules make him an active player as of the start of the voting period, but he hasn't had any activity on the wiki since about 2 hours after he joined. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 14:12, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :Oops! I forgot about Darus67. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Current revision as of 18:29, 31 May 2007
| Archived Discussion | |
|---|---|
| Decisions of the Judge/Dec06 |
I request a Judgement on whether Proposal 357 should have failed. According to Rule 326, section 2, a proposal in those set of circumstances is 'dismissed', and it is not clear whether this is the same as failing for the purposes of scoring. Should Applejuicefool have lost 10 points? --Finisterre 06:05, 5 January 2007 (EST)
378 vote
I request judgement on whether BobTHJ properly closed the voting of 378. 109 states that the vote needed to be "unanimous among the eligible voters". I believe that several voters were Active at the beginning of the voting period who did not vote, so the vote cannot have passed. I'm uncertain, under 372, whether the vote should have been held open for 14 days or if it can be closed as failing once Quorum has been met and 48 hours have passed since the last vote, but I don't believe Quorum has been met in any case, and if it has I believe the result should be Failed. Wooble 20:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
-- I overlooked Rule #109 when determining if voting was complete. However, all active voters has voted at the time I closed voting (since I had just made everyone else inactive), so it's a tough call. My apologies for not being more cautious. BobTHJ 20:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Quorum
Chuck has become active since the recent proposals 393, 394, 395 were opened for voting. While rule 362 says he is not an eligible voter, it is ambiguous if Chuck becoming an active player increases quorum from 2 votes to 3 per rule 371. I request judgment on the current value of Quorum.
- I'll try to get to this tomorrow...i just got home and want to spend awhile looking the rules to make sure i properly interpret the situation. Thank you for bringing this to attention. --Tucana25 00:02, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- I believe this point is moot, as all 3 of those proposals require a unanimous vote among players who were Active when they were brought to vote. Wooble 08:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- Indeed it is, and I figured it would be, however it would be nice to have a ruling anyway should the situation arise in the future. BobTHJ 10:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- I believe this point is moot, as all 3 of those proposals require a unanimous vote among players who were Active when they were brought to vote. Wooble 08:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
393,395
Before I score these 2, I'd like clarification on whether Darus67 should have been required to vote For both of these for them to pass. I think the rules make him an active player as of the start of the voting period, but he hasn't had any activity on the wiki since about 2 hours after he joined. Wooble 14:12, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- Oops! I forgot about Darus67. BobTHJ 14:29, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
