Rule 203 will be changed to read:
203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the first complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require a 2/3rds majority to be adopted. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require a simple majority to be adopted.
A voter may chose to abstain from voting by saying so. Abstained votes are not used in calculating the majority of the vote.
yes
Yes.
Yeah
This is an amendment to rule 203 . . . those conditions will never trigger now if we pass this.
Veto.
Quote from: RezantisThis is an amendment to rule 203 . . . those conditions will never trigger now if we pass this.
Veto.
Rezantis, Count of Cautious Naysaying,
???? Will never trigger now??? Is that (spitefully) "ah ha your plan has failed now 'cause I'm not approving it!" or was there some logic in there I missed? I know your trying hard to live up to your name sake but please. The rule has been amended as per your request what more do you want? It's a solid compromise.
-Rye Coal, Master of my own Universe
(this is of course provisional until my Titler deems me worthy of a more appropriate Title)
I move to approve this amandment.
"If this rule is not amended by the end of the first complete circuit of turns."
This rule has been ammended, if we pass the amendment. The key is whether or not this counts from the last time it was amended, or not. This was up for how long? And no one, not a single person said that this was the interpretation that was going to be made?
I wish you people would point stuff like this out in the debate phase.. Its very frustrating, and not my fault - but I'm the one punished (not to mention the loss of some two days on it)
Quote from: CasualSax"If this rule is not amended by the end of the first complete circuit of turns."
This rule has been ammended, if we pass the amendment. The key is whether or not this counts from the last time it was amended, or not. This was up for how long? And no one, not a single person said that this was the interpretation that was going to be made?
I wish you people would point stuff like this out in the debate phase.. Its very frustrating, and not my fault - but I'm the one punished (not to mention the loss of some two days on it)
I know this isn't a discussion forum, but hey nothing says you can't right? I looked at that and read it to mean the amendment would take precedent over the old rule, not simply negate it. So we amend it, the old executing conditions are changed- Void, null, dead in the water what have you. We amend the rule, therefore the following clause...
"it automatically changes to require only a simple majority. "...
is void. The new clause
"it automatically changes to require a 2/3rds majority to be adopted. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require a simple majority to be adopted. "
changes the vote requirement after this circuit of turns is completed to 2/3 and upon the completion of the second round the vote requirement is change to simple majority.
If I were the judge that how I would rule, but that not my job this turn. So how about it Carthrat, (the most high chief) Laboratory Rat?
Sometimes I can be pretty dense so if I'm not seeing the forest for the tree, please feel free to take a chainsaw to it.
Rye Coal, provisionally titled "The Honorable, Lord of my Personal Interpretation - and the only reasonable one at that" **
**Please note as this is a provisional title and not the official title therefore the 20 character limit does not apply- nor do any of the other rules for that matter.
How about I just change it right now? No rule says I can't..
Quote from: CasualSaxHow about I just change it right now? No rule says I can't..
change what?
I'd have mentioned it in the debate phase except it only just occurred to me now before I posted that. If I'd thought of it earlier I would have said it earlier - as it was, it honestly didn't occur to me.
Quote"If this rule is not amended by the end of the first complete circuit of turns."
The thing is, passing this proposal would involve amending rule 203 before the end of the first circuit of turns. Therefore rule 203 has been amended by the end of the first complete circuit and the conditions will never come into play because of it.
Nowhere do you say you're resetting that, it's all assumption - but going purely by the letter of the rules, that's what would happen.
I suspect some other people were well aware of this.
I'm not precisely sure whether you can amend your proposal once it's been submitted for voting, I don't think so but it might be a question for a judge.
SOuns like a trechnicality to me, but wouldn't the clause "If this rule is not amended by the end of the first complete circuit of turns" go into effect after this proposal, therefore would exclude what came before?
So Rezantis, Count of Cautious Naysaying you are implying that because we will have amended 203 before the end of the first sequence of turns (under the new revision) the conditions are null and the vote requirement will have remained unanimous?
If so, thank you for clear cutting my tree. I agree with you now. In order to have not wasted our time completely I say we change the first part to simply be a declarative statement and let it pass IF, All of those who Have voted already are notified of the change and post with regard to the changes.
Rye Coal
-OM Creed: its ok if they didn't say you couldn't.
So throw the word "again" in a couple times and revote on it....
I'm fine by having a revote with a new thing to cover it.. if no ones against it, then I say we just go ahead and do it.
Quote from: Rye CoalSo Rezantis, Count of Cautious Naysaying you are implying that because we will have amended 203 before the end of the first sequence of turns (under the new revision) the conditions are null and the vote requirement will have remained unanimous?
I'm still not seeing how the new conditions would be made null - it seems to me they would override the original and this bit -
QuoteIf this rule is not amended by the end of the first complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require a 2/3rds majority to be adopted. If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require a simple majority to be adopted.
- applies to conditions under the new rule and possible further amendments to it, but whatever. Technicalities, technicalities. A "final" version ought to be final, but I have no problem with a rewrite if it will make people happy. :D
if you want to revote it, go ahead, but I agree totally and completely with Tinman Seeking Brain tinuviel
A new thread is up. If your against it or this revision (done only so that no one else has to waste a proposal on a technicality), post so there. If you approve, post it there too.