@SD: I am saying that even if it has passed voting has not concluded. It is not the same thing. We have a major loophole in our hands

@ guak: "I am saying that even if it has passed voting has not concluded."

Why?

This is nonsense.

For purposes of voting history. For cases such as Squigs recent proposal that award points to those who vote in favor. I can think of many reasons.

It is not nonsense. If you want to avoid this then we need to correct the loophole.

RULES NEED TO BE EXPLICIT. Else, they are open to interpretation.

List them.

Fuck it.

I'm leaving the game.

I am no longer a nomic member.

Bye.

And the answer to your why is simply because our rules say so!

I propose for the queue:
The president has the power of interpretation. Any dispute as to the interpretation of a rule will be heard by the president. The president will make a decision regarding the rule, and his decision will be put in place.
Additionally, if a nomic member feels that the president is abusing his powers, they may call for an impeachment. Nomic members have 12 hours to vote as to whether the president should be removed from office. Nomic members may abstain from the vote. If a nomic member fails to vote in the 12 hour time period, it will be assumed that they abstain from the vote. In order for the president to be removed from office, two-thirds of all votes (not including abstaining votes) is required. This vote may run parallel with any other vote.
If a president is removed from office, a mid-term election will take place and will last 12 hours. The newly elected president may overrule any previous interpretations of the president that was removed from office.


If you guys want to make changes or revisions to this proposal, please let me know and I will be happy to consider those changes.

no, rules can be partially implicit. for instance, the rule that gave ghug 10 pointz, did not say when he gets the pointz, are you going to say that there is a loophole and he may not have the pointz yet because it didn't explicitly say right away? there is finding a clever loophole, and there is being silly. you're being silly - no offense.

Let me ask you a quick question guak. If a majority has been reached, is the proposal still active?? And if so, then that means we cannot move onto a different proposal, correct??

I will say, things are getting out of hand with this loophole discussion. Loopholes are a part of 'law' in general, but I think we are getting into a strange argument over it.

This is dumb, we need to move on.

People should vote for my amendment rule.

Just so everyone knows, Jamie has told me he has left this game, and has muted the thread. He said he would not be coming back too.

We're gonna have to formally remove him from the voting body.

@Squigs: exactly

I don't know why everyone is making suh a big deal about it. All we need to do is amend rule 5 so that it automatically closes the topic for discussion.

Y'all can we get this pissed in a hurry? We need to amend rule ten.

guak, you're wrong, give it up.

@SD: well you are right about the timing of the poitnz. That rule should be amended too. If you remember the +1 pointz rule had to be amended for the same reason to indicate timing of accumulation of the pointz.

I am not wrong. There is a loophole.

Prove to me that I am wrong and I will let the matter be. SO far all I have heard is that it is implied. I completely disagree. It is not implied and rules need to be explicit to avoid loopholes. I already pointed out that in places such as the UN topics remain open for discussion even after they have passed and that reaching simple majority does not mean that the vote automatically ends. The rollcall is not completed until every member has voted or abstained. The only rule we have to end voting early is the 24 hour rule.

The +1 rule was never amended.

It really doesn't matter if you agree: you're wrong and everyone agrees that you're wrong, so this will go nowhere. If you'd like to propose an amendment once my rule passes, go right ahead, but nothing that has already happened is going to change.

Rule 11 states: 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.

I think the biggest question here is: What determines when "voting on [a] proposal or amendment [is] concluded"? If voting is concluded when a majority is reached then guak is wrong. If voting is concluded when the last person votes, then I am going to have to agree with guak. Since there is no explicit wording that states one way or another, it is completely up to interpretation, and therein lies our problem. That is why you guys should all vote for my powers of the president proposal (alliteration not intended).

@Squigs: You got that right. Rule is open for interpretation, thus it needs to be amended.

@ghug: it does matter if I agree because so far only four nomic members have spoken about this and opinion is divided. If it were 10 nomic members to 1 then perhaps matters would be different. But I am pretty sure that there is some common sense around here and that I am not the only one that can see that the rule needs to be amended.

you know the rule about members needing to be vouched for to enter the game? it doesn't say how long after being vouched for they can join the game. ergo, anyone vouched for shouldn't have been properly counted as a member. #crisis #wait #it #is #okay #guak #is #being #an #idiot

How are you gaining anything by allowing members to vote on somthing that is already past?

@ezra: because some proposals give benefits to those voting in favor.

@SD: you are making an ass out of yourself. Different scenarios.

That was the point, several people got shafted by not voting quickly enough, or voting with the proper terminology.

There's nothing you can really do about it.