Register    Login    Forum    Search    Chat [0]    FAQ

Board index » Emerald Hills General Forums » Announcements » Old Althing Results




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:47 pm
Posts: 991
It was written "Out of a total of 213 eligible voters ...85 voted."

If they were not either dues payed, or active enough, then they wouldn't be eligible to vote. You cant be one or the other. You (they) need to be both. I know I have been dues payed up for life but if I'm not active I don't get to vote.

As long as I'm active I am eligible to vote. Seems pretty clear to me.

Am I wrong?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:23 pm
Posts: 854
The voter list is comprised of players that meet the residency rules, so 6 mos or more of being a member of EH, then attendance comes into play : did they have 6 or more attendances in the time period before the vote ....then even IF they are not dues paid, they make the list. Dues can be paid by any player, on the final voter list, up to the day of the vote. So go to park ..pay dues and vote on the same day is allowed.

Voter list posted was 212 ...one park PM came to me pre the vote with a player that should of been on the list (met all the requirements) so 213. 106 were NDP ...out of all the NDP ppl ...12 paid their dues.

I held off until Aug 20 to make sure the visitor creds were entered and for the park PMs to get any and all previous creds in. That was to try and get more players eligible to vote.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:55 pm
Posts: 638
Draeven wrote:
Darkangel wrote:
Those are all independent items, people are free to vote as they wish.


Quote:
Item 2:
Results: 54 Yes / 29 No / 2 abstained = 85

Item 3:
If YES, do you feel:Results: 44 Yes / 29 No / 12 abstained = 85

Item 4:
If YES, do you feel:


It's the "If YES" that makes them dependant items, and thus if you voted no on item 2 your vote wouldn't count for the rest of the items, since Item 3 was dependant on Yes votes for Item 2, and Item 4 dependant on Yes votes for Item 3.

All in all, it really doesn't matter, because due to the wording of the initial proposal, they were just discussion items, not binding resolutions... Do you think blah-blah-blah SHOULD happen...


They were discussion items, so it's not a big deal, but for the purposes of illumination:

While they were written conditionally, that's not actually how agenda items work. To actually create a vote in which a variety of proposals and sub-proposals are considered, you need to make a separate item for each combination. If the items were actually binding and condition, you are actually creating an automatic run-off in which someone is forbidden the option to choose nothing. Imagine if the following ballot were proposed:

A) It is proposed to hold a joint midreign with Kingdom Blah. Do you support this decision?
B) If Yes to A, do you think it should at Camp Podunk, 250 miles away from the kingdom center?

Imagine there are ten voting members in the kingdom. Imagine on item A, six vote for it and four against it. Imagine all four of the Nay votes would also not like going to camp Podunk. Of the six Yes votes, two hate Camp Podunk, but the other four love it and cherish its fried burritoes. They would probably marry them. If you held voting Yes on to be a requirement on voting on B at all, the the final result would be Yay 4:2. And that's how you could end up a joing midreign with Kingdom Blah, 250 miles away, even though over half the voting members of the kingdom hate the idea. If it had been simply proposed

A) It is proposed to hold a joint midreign with Kingdom Blah at Camp Podunk. Do you support this decision?

that could very well be a solid No, 6:4. Or not. But everyone should be able to vote on every part of every item.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:24 am
Posts: 149
Location: EagleShire
@ Nevron and TigerHawke... we're having a semantical argument here. Per the Corpora, we had 213 Active Residents, TigerHawke is refering to these people as elegible to vote (providing they pay dues).

_________________
DarkTigger


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:24 am
Posts: 149
Location: EagleShire
@ Darkangel: If I had a vote, or survey if you will (since these were non-binding), that was asking:
a: would you eat apple pie if it were offered as a desert at the next feast?
b: if yes, would you want ice cream with the pie?

and the results came back a: 6 yes, 4 no; b: 6 yes, 4 no. Wouldn't you want to know the relationship between the answers. I now buy ice cream for 6 people (just taking the numbers from your example... it would most likely be 60:40), and only 2 take it because the 4 other yeses were from people who don't understand if/then statements.

While I agree with you that in some situations it could be valuable to have peoples input on item b even if they disagree with item a; don't we have a responsiblity when answering questions to make sure we are answering what is asked? and if part of the question is "If yes" and I answered no on the previous questions then I shouldn't answer... I am not being honest with my responses.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you are the person arguing this (at least in the way). You tend the be the "letter of the law" person in these arguements on the forums. I would agree with you if you stated that the althing items were worded poorly, but to say that it doesn't matter if people follow what was written seems incredibly stupid, especially since the topic being discussed is putting a "code of conduct," or what-ever we're going to call it, in writing.

_________________
DarkTigger


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:55 pm
Posts: 638
Dark Tigger wrote:
@ Darkangel: If I had a vote, or survey if you will (since these were non-binding), that was asking:
a: would you eat apple pie if it were offered as a desert at the next feast?
b: if yes, would you want ice cream with the pie?

and the results came back a: 6 yes, 4 no; b: 6 yes, 4 no. Wouldn't you want to know the relationship between the answers. I now buy ice cream for 6 people (just taking the numbers from your example... it would most likely be 60:40), and only 2 take it because the 4 other yeses were from people who don't understand if/then statements.


Or they all eat the ice cream because they don't like pie. The whole point of a referendum is to ask people to vote in their own best interests, not to conform their behavior to the expectations of someone else setting the agenda. One person, one vote, one motion, one tally. Irrespective of how thoughtfully the original item may or may not have been written, or whether anyone can divine what the intention of the oringal author was, that's how it works.

So the question isn't really whether I wanted to know what the relationship was, but whether the original author wanted to know. All I want to know is, is there some angle here where I get ice cream?

That's the letter of the law. Setting conditions on who can vote on subsequent items is not a valid parliamentary procedure, and with good reason. In the a la mode example, there is an implicit assumption that if I don't want pie, I don't want ice cream. Furtheremore, these items were offered basically as survey items. It's in the nature of surveys for people to answer irrationally.

A properly formed agenda would look something like this:

a: would you eat apple pie if it were offered as a desert at the next feast? Yes/No
b: would you eat apple with ice cream if it were offered as a desert at the next feat? Yes/No

Assuming both items pass, it's pie and ice cream time. If only the first one passes, there is a strong suggestion that the majority don't want ice cream. Whether or not that's reason enough not to serve it falls on the decision maker. If only the second item passes, you might interpret that a lot of people aren't interested in dry pie.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 250
Am I wrong in thinking that anyone can present an Althing proposal and it is up to Docsi to determine if the proposal becomes a part of the next Althing?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:39 am
Posts: 226
AnnaMarie wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking that anyone can present an Althing proposal and it is up to Docsi to determine if the proposal becomes a part of the next Althing?


You are not wrong. That's one of the things the monarch does.

_________________
==

Rayel


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:05 am
Posts: 497
Location: Tahlequah, Oklahoma
and since the CoK is already working on this issue it will be presented in a different manner in November to finalize everything. The populace has given its 'opinion' and the CoK is doing its part to follow thru with what the populace thinks it should do. Lets give it some time and see what they come up with. From what information I have received they are doing just that.

_________________
Duke, Squire Docsi HardAnvil
aka the Mad Dwarf
GMR of Dreadmoor
Squire to Sir Logan T. Black
Clan Chieftain of the Turtle Clan
Ship's Surgeon, HMS "Turtle's Revenge"
Gaslight Sky Pirate

"Dwarves and mountains have one thing in common: It takes an almighty hammer and a tremendous amount of persistence to overcome them."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:47 pm
Posts: 991
Darkangel wrote:
Assuming both items pass, it's pie and ice cream time. If only the first one passes, there is a strong suggestion that the majority don't want ice cream. Whether or not that's reason enough not to serve it falls on the decision maker. If only the second item passes, you might interpret that a lot of people aren't interested in dry pie.



Dang... for some strange reason I'm feeling hungry. And I have to say that I'm not really a Pie and Ice Cream type guy. So I suppose I'll just have to settle for Peanut Butter Cookies and MT. Dew.

*looking around*

Squire!!! Attend Me!


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » Emerald Hills General Forums » Announcements » Old Althing Results


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron