That would make the votes Squigs Atrum and I made valid.

i'm not sure implied is a loophole. i think it means it's part of the rule just not explicit.

Loophole

I vote Aye

nah bro. if this is a loophole, incidentally, your votes don't count, because this would mean none of the old bills were passed until what, the 24 hours were up? which would mean any bill we voted on straight after passing one would also be invalid (because of the one bill at a time rule). we also wouldn't have an explicit place to say a bill is rejected as soon as the votes reach 50%or more, so any votes that happened after a bill was rejected would be invalid. so most of the rules would have to be completely deleted. luckily for us, there is no loophole and it's implicit.

I vote aye

So, what exactly is happening then since we're discussing 'loopholes'?

@SD: That is exactly what it means. I was about to post that. We have been playing it wrong since the time rule was passed. A proposal is open until it expires or every nomic member has voted. Nowhere does it say that once simple majority is reached the rest of the members cannot vote.

@Atrum: rule 5 only says that a proposal needs a simple majority to pass, but does not state that a proposal is automatically closed after it is passed. This means that every proposal would need to wait until every other member has voted or it has expired as per the time rule. Since the loophole has only been noticed just now, I would think that we should not strike every rule we have passed since, but I do believe that our recent votes are valid and that this needs to be amended ASAP. We also need a rule for emergency situations such as this that would require skipping the queue to accelerate matters.

i think it is not a loophole though - if we say there is no loophole and it passes straight away. unfortunately the only thing we could do is put the solution to a vote. if the vote says there is no loophole then we are fine, but if the vote says there is a loophole, that vote is invalid, so has no power to say there is a loophole, in which case we have not legitimately determined there is a loophole. luckily, there is no loophole

You guys are mistaken about the 24 hour thing. Read rules 10 and 11 carefully:

10. Any rule, amendment, or deletion proposal that has not passed within 24 hours of being suggested becomes rejected automatically.
11. Only one rule proposal or amendment may be open for consideration at any one time. Once a rule proposal or amendment has been made, voting on that proposal or amendment must be concluded before any other proposal or amendment can be made. Furthermore, we are resolving open proposals or amendments by a queue, and ghug gets 10 Nomic Pointz.

Rule 10 is satisfied as soon as a proposal is "passed" - ie it reaches enough votes to be approved. Once that point has been reached, you can go on to the next proposal. There is nothing that even *implies* you need to wait for every member to vote, as long as enough votes have been cast *in favour* of a proposal, it passes and you move straight on to the next.

@Jamie: Rule 10 explicitly says that if it is not passed within the time frame then it is automatically rejected. It does not say that the clock ends early. This means that discussion is open until the 24 hours have passed. We need to correct this loophole.

Jamie, i'm not sure how i'm mistaken. I said the rules say things pass at a majority. guak says there is nothing to say when it passes (as it does voting end just because it has reached a majority). I say it's implicitly there and not a loophole, he says it's a loophole.

When the 24 hour clock expires, then each proposal is passed or rejected based on the amount of votes at the time. But we have no rule for ending discussion on a topic early. We need to amend this.

You're mistaken. That's a perverse way to read that rule and I dispute your interpretation. Why would you need to keep voting on a motion that has been passed?

i said something to that effect jamie. could have just said you agreed with me, and that there is no loophole to be fixedd.

"We also need a rule for emergency situations such as this that would require skipping the queue to accelerate matters." Hmmmm.... kinda like the one I proposed a day or two ago that you all voted nay on...

@SD: I am not saying there is nothing that says when it passes. I am saying that even when a rule has passed, discussion on the topic has not yet been closed. If any of you have ever been in an MUN or something of the sort, you would know that after a resolution is passed the topic is still open until someone motions to close the discussion on the topic, so passing a proposal cannot possibly 'imply' that it is closed. It needs to be amended.

As I would understand it, once a rule is 'approved' by simple majority (conversely the same for denial of a proposal), it would be instated. Once a rule is instated, future voting would be pointless and/or redundant. Although it does not prevent voting, you are right. Seems strange.

I agree that we need to make a rule that allows for a priority vote. I still need to re-propose my 'revise / abstain' proposal.

Ok SD, I think me and you actually agree and it's just guak who is wrong.

Look, guak, rule 5:

5. All proposed new rules, proposed rule changes, or proposed rule deletions require a simple majority (more than half) of those playing, in order to pass, with the proposer automatically presumed to vote in favour unless they state otherwise.

Once a simple majority has been reached, the motion passes.

Rule 10 only deals with motions that have NOT passed yet.

@Jamie: it is not 'perverse' it simply is literal. There is a loophole and we need to correct it.

@Squigs: I think your proposal time expired.

Guak this is not Model United Nations and none of its rules are implied to apply here.

There is no loophole, you're simply mistaken, guak. It's your understanding that needs to be corrected.

I am sory guys, but you are both wrong as soon as you base your entire argument on something that is implied. Rules need to be explicit.

Rule 11 says that VOTING has to be concluded, not "discussion". VOTING.

Under rule 5, once a simple majority is reached, VOTING has ENDED and Rule 10 does not even apply in that case.

The only rule we have that closes discussion on proposals is Rule 10. It does not say anywhere that it only applies to proposals that have not passed.

I know this is not MUN, but there is a reason why MUN has that set of rules, because else there would be a loophole like the one we currently have.

the question is really whether 5 has a loophole or not. i think it implies that we move on after a motion gets 50%+ of the vote, because it says that's what it needs to pass. that is the necessary condition to pass, so once the only necessary condition has been met, it has passed.

guak thinks there is no such reading for that, and that just because it has met the necessary condition to pass, does not mean it has passed (yet)

Guak is talking out of his arse.

Let's move on.

Jamie, which rule says that voting ends when a simple majority is reached? Voting ends when every nomic member has voted