Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Proposed Executive Action: Edit to Rule 16


This has been bothering me for a while, and I finally figured out how to resolve it.

Rule 16, regarding the validity of moderator votes, states that there must be 3 votes for a vote to be valid:

quote:

16. Moderator Votes: In all moderator votes, a vote must be called for and seconded. Some specific votes require an additional third. When a vote has been appropriately initiated, and at least 3 moderators have voted, the vote will conclude 24 hours after being initiated. Forum administration will determine when the 24 hours has expired. All moderator votes require at least 3 votes to be valid. The vote can be postponed an additional 48 hours if a majority of moderators vote to extend debate. Votes to extend debate will be counted one hour after such a vote has been initiated. Delaying votes does not affect votes already cast. By the end of the voting period, moderators must vote with an unambiguous “yea” or “nay”. Voting will not be done with the forums voting mechanism. When there is a tie, the decision will be made by forum administration. (See the Statute of Limitations for Administrative Issues.)



This has a problem. Suppose that only two people vote and they both vote in the affirmative. In this case, the vote will be declared invalid and the measure will be effectively defeated. However, if a third person votes in the negative, the vote will be declared valid. In votes requiring a simple majority, the initiative will then pass. This results in the problematic situation where someone's act of voting against a measure actually causes it to pass, where if they had not voted at all, it would fail. The result would be that members who oppose a measure would be constantly reminding other members to not cast a negative vote in measures that have only two votes that are both in the affirmative. This would be an extremely annoying distraction.

The solution I would like to implement is that a vote be declared valid only if there are three affirmative votes. This works out perfectly. If only two votes are cast, a measure will be effectively defeated. If three votes are cast and one of them is negative, the measure will also be effectively defeated. However, this is exactly what would happen if the person who voted in the negative did not vote at all. If three affirmative votes are cast, then there is automatically a quorum and there is no problem.

I propose that rule 16 be amended as follows:

quote:

16. Moderator Votes: In all moderator votes, a vote must be called for and seconded. Some specific votes require an additional third. When a vote has been appropriately initiated, and at least 3 moderators have voted, the vote will conclude 24 hours after being initiated. Forum administration will determine when the 24 hours has expired. All moderator votes require at least 3 affirmative votes to be valid. The vote can be postponed an additional 48 hours if a majority of moderators vote to extend debate. Votes to extend debate will be counted one hour after such a vote has been initiated. Delaying votes does not affect votes already cast. By the end of the voting period, moderators must vote with an unambiguous “yea” or “nay”. Voting will not be done with the forums voting mechanism. When there is a tie, the decision will be made by forum administration. (See the Statute of Limitations for Administrative Issues.)



Since there may be votes coming up regarding the creation of two sticky topics, one containing a link to Richie's book list and the other containing a link to James' films, this change will not affect those votes.
12/30/2017, 8:59 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
richiemobile Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Proposed Executive Action: Edit to Rule 16


I mean how hard would it be for us moderators to be in contact through other contact sources. I suggest 1.phone numbers for texting (mine is 515 554 9314) 2. Email addresses ([email protected]) and possibly 3. Facebook messenger. My Facebook name is ‘Richard Stockstad’


I missed a vote in here because I didn’t notice it was happening.

Not all my ideas are good
1/1/2018, 1:14 pm Link to this post PM richiemobile Blog
 
TheInvisibleHand Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Proposed Executive Action: Edit to Rule 16


quote:

I missed a vote in here because I didn’t notice it was happening.



I am impressed just that you think it is that important. In most of these votes, I have had difficulty getting anyone to vote.

The next time there is a vote of any importance I will make a point to contact you. I am a tad absent minded, so you should not absolutely count on it.
1/1/2018, 1:45 pm Link to this post PM TheInvisibleHand Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top