Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Orange Wizard]

Shouldn't that go in the IC thread?

[Squeegy]

Maybe it's just a funny OOC joke, since both GA-B-001-P-M-1 and GA-B-001-P-T-2 would pass with a majority of votes cast even if Avalia voted against them.

[Orange Wizard]

That explains the whooshing noise above my head.

[Squeegy]

I am, of course, being facetious; I believe 10ebbor10 erroneously counted abstains as nay votes and posted in the wrong thread.

[Orange Wizard]

That explains the whooshing noise above my head.

[10ebbor10]

Maybe it's just a funny OOC joke, since both GA-B-001-P-M-1 and GA-B-001-P-T-2 would pass with a majority of votes cast even if Avalia voted against them.

Actually, if you read the charter, my interpretation is correct.

If a majority of the committee members vote in favour, the amendement passes.

Thus means that more than half the committee members must vote yes. Abstaining is thus identical to voting no.

Had it read that a majority must vote in favour, then your interpretation is correct.

[notquitethere]

Yep, there's no formal recognition of abstention. (Another thing to add to the Policy To Do list)

[Squeegy]

Abstaining isn't voting. Your interpretation of the charter is frankly a little ridiculous, and not even a direct quote (the charter says 'approve,' not 'vote in favour,' if you want to get all technical about it, approval is merely defined as consenting to something, and abstaining is consenting to whatever decision is reached). It's also in extremely bad faith because I explicitly said you could abstain. But I guess since you're the Assembly Leader no one can do anything about it (yet). Welcome to politics!

e: But to be clear, no interpretation of the charter is "correct." That's why it's an interpretation. The Assembly Leader's interpretation is simply the one everyone has to abide by, regardless of its accuracy.

[Parsely]

A majority is in favor, which is why abstaining is different from saying 'Nay'. They have no opinion. If you say Nay then you're actually opposing the amendment.

[Playergamer]

Yeah, abstaining is usually used to mean you aren't counted at all for that vote, which moves the 50% goal line down.

[Squeegy]

10ebbor10's argument is based on the wording of the phrase "a majority of the committee's members vote in favor." If that were indeed the wording then I would consider him perfectly justified in interpreting it that way, if he chose to. But it's a paraphrase of the actual charter, which uses looser wording, merely stating that "a majority of the committee’s members [must] approve the amendment."

But that's none of my business. It's the Assembly Leader's right to decide how the charter is enforced (de facto executive power). My opinion on the matter is irrelevant because I'm not even a delegate. If you guys disagree then you'll have to reconcile it through the charter. One way to do that is through the Policy Committee, as proposed by notquitethere, though that isn't the only way.

[10ebbor10]

Honestly, the chapter was breached in multiple ways. The way the amendments were voted on, (concurrently rather than one by one) is technically also a breach.

We also missed the 24 hour period waiting thing, and some other stuff.

But still, I stand by my interpretation. Abstention is merely the act of non-voting, and thus does not mean approval.

[Squeegy]

Abstention necessitates the acceptance of whatever decision is reached, so it requires that you approve of whatever gets the most votes. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

And yes, all of those were breaches of the charter. You're very lax in your duties, 10ebbor10!

[Sheb]

We really need to re-write large part of this charter to make it clearer.

[Varee]

Badly writen charter and deliberatwly misinterpetating it is just part of political !!FUN!!