AMENDMENT: Quorum in Resolutions and Amendments

[mapfi]

According to the discussion held here I'm proposing changes to the current constitution.

I have taken a quick look trough the posts and here's the at least-participating-in-some-discussion-memberlist, abbreviated (Gilg,Loc,HT,mapfi,huhahu,Frozzy,Dale,Pedrunn,Tame rlin,Zaphod,IW,Maq,Tur, DoT,coT,Ãskallin,Martin,Huang,Gamer Man,Solver). That makes 20. I kind of got convinced by Martin's arguement and therefore I'd prefer a absolut quorum. 7 yes votes sounds reasonable to me in this case.

I propose to change the following two paragraphs:

Article IV:
3.
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. Ammendments
(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.

to new:
Article IV,3.
III. Resolutions
(e) If there are more votes in favour than against, at least 7 votes 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. Ammendments
(e) If there are more votes in favour than against, at least 7 votes in favour and the Court does not declare the poll invalid, then the Ammendment is considered passed. All Citizens must from that time on obey it.

and also new:
Article III, 4. Rights and Responsibilities
(g) In case the number of active posters severly differs from 20 the court may change the quorum of 7 votes in favour for resolution and ammendment polls in a unanimous vote.

This poll will be open for 5 days till April 21st, somewhere at 9am GTM and unfortunately needs 10 votes in favor to pass - so please vote all!

edit: some typos

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, i'd still prefer to kick those out who don't participate, but lets try if we reach the quorum.

oh, and btw, we don't need 10 votes, but 1/6 of the registered members, a number that may grow or drop

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

it works

just tested it, votes don't get lost if you quit the dg-group

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

now i'm a citizen again, feels good

[mapfi]

Quit spamming!

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
well, i'd still prefer to kick those out who don't participate, but lets try if we reach the quorum.

actually me too, but it doesn't look like Markos is likely to do such a thing soon and we need a solution now.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

i wasn't spamming, i was researching creative ways to reach the quorum

[Tamerlin]

Dear citizens,

I have voted in favor of this amendment because any rule that can speed up or ease the game is welcomed but I don't like the article e.

As far as Amendments are concerned I understand the need for a qualified majority in favor of a yes as we are talking about the constitution of Lemuria, but as far as Resolutions are concerned a qualified majority in favor of a yes is IMO useless...

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Dear citizens,

I have voted in favor of this amendment because any rule that can speed up or ease the game is welcomed but I don't like the article e.

What e do you mean. The amendments or the resolutions. Of course we all prefer to restore the original quorum of 1/3 of the members, but that is an illusion. So on the one hand we have the court and on the other hand we can change it again if we like it. So hope this is now a stabil situation.

-Martin

[Tamerlin]

The first e Martin...

I am simply writing that a qualified majority of yes is useless as far as Resolution polls are concerned.

Let's say the result of a poll is: 5 Yes and 2 No. I really don't see why the Resolution shall not be adopted because there are less than 7 Yes. The majority of the voters having expressed their will in favor of the Resolution it should be adopted.

Amendments are about changing the rules of the game and are thus far more important as they are affecting the whole game and the participation of the citizens to the game. A minimum of voters expressing their opinion in favor of the said Amendment is thus a good thing.

Am I more clear?

[child of Thor]

i'm not very good at this constitution malarky(or spelling!), but i think having a set amount to pass a vote, rather than a percentage of members is a bit problamatic, as Tamerlin has highlighted. So i'm not sure on this one and will abstain for now.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

please don't abstain!
we have to get rid of that 1/6 of a large mass of folks who don't even read this before we get even more inactive "citizens". once that is done, we can begin to argue about details.

[Gilgamensch]

I voted YES.

Espacially the part with the court I agree with.

unanimous vote

This should make sure that it is in the best interrest of the game!

I must say, I never expected that people would try to 'harm' our nice DG. (OK, except those CIV3'ers.......... )

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

i don't think anybody is trying to harm us, the people just don't care, like in rl-politics. unless you prove me wrong of course.

[Gilgamensch]

I kind of seeing it as a harm to us:

They are kind of spoiling our interrest.....

In RL the situation is different, there we, the people, don't really have anything to say........it doesn't really matter how you vote, those politicians are anyway damned layers.......

But here in our DG, it isn't (I hope )..........

And people subscribing, but not bothering about the DG, is a harm to us..........

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, offtopic, but in rl its also harmful not to vote. gives more power to extremists like me