Subject: Re: MN: last week's voting results

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:27:53 +0100 (BST)

Pulling dave's mutterings out and looking at them again (for in doing my Week-
End stuff I remembered I never actually replied to this):-

>Under the new system introduced last week, might I suggest that the voting
>results should perhaps read more like this:
>
>[of 11 players, 6 were active (assuming PaulWay was only made inactive *after*
>votes were calculated), so quorum is 4 on all proposals this week, not 2 -- all
>proposals were quorate either way, so it doesn't make much difference]

And he corrected that to "three" after rereading something.

But am I missing something, or does his interpretation not make sense?

Rule 0.5.4 (Abstentions and Quorum) says:-

"Any Active Player who does not vote or who submits an invalid vote shall be
deemed to have abstained. Inactive Players are never counted as having
abstained. If the total of abstentions exceeds the total of valid votes (i.e.
votes FOR, AGAINST or PASS), the Proposal fails to reach Quorum."

We had eleven Players, six Active, and only one who abstained (assuming that
the other Players Voted "PASS" for eir own Proposals). Proposals would
therefore fail to reach Quorum if their total number of Valid Votes was less
than the number of abstentions - one. So this actually makes Quorum, er, one,
doesn't it?

Either dave's Quorum Proposal didn't say what he meant it to mean, or I'm
missing something quite horribly, here...

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"Better to live for one day like a lion than a thousand sheepishly."
-- The Divine Comedy, "Thrillseeker"