 |
Which Clauses shall be added to the Constitution
This poll is closed. |
| Clause 1 |
   |
16 |
72.73% |
| Clause 2 |
   |
16 |
72.73% |
| Clause 3 |
   |
18 |
81.82% |
| Clause 4 |
   |
11 |
50.00% |
| Clause 5 |
   |
17 |
77.27% |
| Clause 6 |
   |
15 |
68.18% |
| Clause 7 |
   |
19 |
86.36% |
| Clause 8 |
   |
17 |
77.27% |
| Banana/Abstain/None of them |
   |
2 |
9.09% |
| Total: |
22 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
civman, a technical question... (possibly "legal" question)
I don't understand how you're going to determine which clauses pass. 2/3 of what? total votes? but people can vote for more than 1 clause. Right now, it's something like 12 votes for the most popular, but the total is 60+ votes. You'll never get it passed that way.
Example: Say I vote for only 1 out of 8 of them, say the first. But Buddy votes for 8 out of 8. Then the first would have 100%, and every other one 50%... right?
But how do you know whether it's that case or whether 9 people voted, 2 for the first, and everyone else for just 1. In that case, it would be 2/9, and 1/9 for every other one.
I assume you would have to count them all against the total number of voters, not votes cast (which is contrary to how most polls have been done), if you wanted it to be fair because if I vote for only 3 of them, that means I am automatically voting against the other 5.
I'm just not sure how you're going to determine what constitutes 2/3. You may have to ask MarkG to tell you how many voters in total to get this right since that info isn't readily available.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
kring
|
 |
Wichita,KS,USA
Dec 2001 time: 23:21
|
|
Clause 2: No citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll.
Question, if they are barred from the game, doesn't this allow them to still vote, not that I am either for or against this clause, just mentioning it. Esp. since if you could still vote, how much punishment could there be for someone barred? Also, the same would hold true for people banned from Apolyton. They would have the right to vote; they would to contact someone to get their vote counted.
Clause 4: No one shall be banned permanently from participating in the democracy game, excluding those who are permanently banned from apolyton. Note that people may still be banned for any amount of tiem, as long as it is not permanent.
It is possible that some people would need to be banned permanently; hopefully, they will be banned Apolyton if that is the case.
Clause 5: THe right to associate into any form of organization shall not be denied.
Would this also apply to justices, as well?
Clause 6: No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.
How would we handle a need for immediate due process if not enough justices are available?
Clause 7: No president shall ever use a version of the game which is not available to all players.
Will this include Mac players, as well. I think it would have to. The reason I bring it up is that MacSoft may not patch to 1.29, and if they do, it may be a long time. Also, what about people that choose not to patch? Sometimes, it is a dial up d/l time issue.
Also, I was noticing the poll shows 107 votes; with a maximum of 14 on 5 of them; 13 on 2 of them. How will we know if a majority is reached. An assumption would be 14 people voted, but that is not necessarily accurate. As has been pointed out by Captain, this may not be true.
Just some food for thought; as well as a request for clarification.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001 time: 17:21
|
|
*Ahem. If I may direct your attention to the bottom of the poll...? It reads "total 18 voters". I should think that's fairly clear how we see a majority decision.
When MarkG responds, we will know whether or not we can ban certain posters from voting for any length of time.
Wasn't there a poll on whether justices could be party members or not? This poll would give the answer. Besides, Justiceship is another layer of rules on top of these - a special case, if you will. Any and all judges should have to accept the restrictions (if any) of their position, and they would not be worthy if they challenged on a minor technical error in our Constitution.
"Immediate" due process is not immediate, but over some hours, at least 12, or so I imagine. Once again, the selection of a judge should rest partly on their (barring accidents) ability to be here often enough.
I do, however, think that we should not patch this game at all, unless something really odd comes up. My conviction in this derives from a Firaxian's statement that v1.21f saves loaded in v1.29f may experience strange effects.
I think that's everything. 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|