Member count - Preamendment discussion

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Dale
Further to Martin's comments, why not make it so that at least 15 people need to vote to make it valid? Whether they vote one way or the other. It won't be every time that you'll get 8 yes votes. Further, using Martin's comments literally, if 8 people vote yes and 10 people vote no, does that mean it passes because 8 voted yes?

Let's see what is the current situation:

Article IV: Polling Rules:


III. Resolutions:

(e) If there are more votes in favour than against, and at least 1/6 of those citizens who do not abstain vote in favour, and the Court does not declare the poll invalid, then the resolution is considered passed. All Citizens must from that time on obey it.

IV. Amendments:

(e) If there are more votes in favour than against, and at least 1/6 of those citizens who do not abstain vote in favour, and the Court does not declare the poll invalid, then the Ammendent is considered passed. All Citizens must from that time on obey it.

My first problem with that formulation is that it was not clear on the first look what is meant. Maybe for a native English speaker that is clear. But afterwards I read the amendment thread again it comes to this:

A RESSOLUTION or an AMENDMENT are considered as passed if:

There are more votes in favour of the question then against. Well that is the first part and it is clear to me on the first look.

Well the second one is not clear too me, even with John's explaination in this thread:

Originally posted by J Bytheway
You count all those citizens who do not abstain (in this particular vote), and if at least 1/6 of those vote in favour, then th resolution is passed.

eg. with 40 citizens, if 10 abstain, you need at least 5 votes in favour.

One problem with this is does he mean the citiziens who do vote abstain or who just don't vote and vote abstain?

But from his example it seems to be that he means citiziens who do vote abstain, those citiziens who do vote expressly abstain. So he does not take the number of citiziens, but only the number of citiziens who actual voted.

So with the current number of citiziens of 55 and one abstain vote. We have to take 54 citiziens. One sixth of them is nine. So we needed at least nine citiziens who voted in favour of this admendment to be able to consider it as passed with one abstain vote.

It doesn't matter how many No votes would be there once we went beyond the limit of nine, as long as there are no more No-vozes then Yes-Votes.

So even with nine Yes_votes and no No-votes would have been passed this amendment also with nine Yes-Votes and eight No-Votes. So that is the current situtation. It is not good that I have to search for the according ammendment poll.

My suggestion is to replace current text by this:

Article IV: Polling Rules:


III. Resolutions:

(e) If there are more votes in favour than against, and at least 8 citizens vote in favour, and the Court does not declare the poll invalid, then the resolution is considered passed. All Citizens must from that time on obey it.

IV. Amendments:

(e) If there are more votes in favour than against, and at least 8 citizens vote in favour, and the Court does not declare the poll invalid, then the Ammendent is considered passed. All Citizens must from that time on obey it.

So three conditions must be met so that the and AMENDMENT or a RESOLUTION can be considered passed:

1. There must be more Yes-Votes then No-Votes.
2. At least 8 citiziens have to vote with Yes.
3. The court does not declare the poll invalid.

The advantage of this is that the number of citiziens can grow to infinity without any problems. Noone needs neither to clean out our civ group nor to bother Marcos to write an auto clean out. So it gives a fixed minimum number of citiziens. With we can work.

-Martin

[mapfi]

Yes, and when we get a lot of newcomers or others come back, then the quorum becomes completely pointless...

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by mapfi
Yes, and when we get a lot of newcomers or others come back, then the quorum becomes completely pointless...

Very unlikly, so far we have a steady stream of newcomers over the time this DG game exists the same is true for the CTP1 DG game. The numbers of members is increasing steadily, but most of the new members aren't very active. So why should this change?

Alternativly we could put the quorum change admendment directly into the constition. For instance if we want to lower or raise the quorum then and only then the fixed number of 8 citiziens is required. In the current situation the quorum is getting pointless and also every other quorum can get pointless. So if we can't clean out the civ group we have again to start a member list thread. But actual I don't like this idea that someone has to search for the active members. So maybe we should use a thread were everyone has to sign up, if he wants to participate in the DG Game in any way. Every term needs its own sign up thread. So who does not sign up again every month is not in anymore.

-Martin

[mapfi]

Ok then - I'll put that in some proposal and we will vote - let's hope we reach the quorum!

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
My first problem with that formulation is that it was not clear on the first look what is meant. Maybe for a native English speaker that is clear. But afterwards I read the amendment thread again it comes to this:

I'm sorry you don't think it's clear - I worried at the time that this might be a problem but I couldn't think of a better wording and noone else suggested one either...