What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 May and June 2024 are YE 46.4 in the RP.

Senate: Passed Proposal 99: Senate Voting Fairness Act

Wes

Wes

Founder & Admin
Staff Member
🌸 FM of Yamatai
🎖️ Game Master
🎨 Media Gallery
Purpose:

1. To prevent laws from being passed through sheer speed rather than merit.

2. To give every Yamataian a chance to vote.

3. To prevent voter fraud.

Proposal:

1. A period of 3 full days of open voting must elapse before a motion to close can be made.

2. Poll topics are prohibited, so that all votes are public.
 
Re: Proposal 98: Senate Voting Fairness Act

Move that this proposal be properly labeled as Proposal 99.
 
Motion seconded. Item renumbered.
 
Re: Proposal 98: Senate Voting Fairness Act

This seems more reasonable than proposal 98, but item two seems ill thought out. Do not prohibit the automated Polls, but instead utilize them to provide visualization on a particular proposal. Of course, only the actual posted votes will count, but the automated one might provide useful data on an issue.
 
My vote on this particular proposal is no. While I'm in favor of removing automated polls (at least initially), removing the motion to close will simply waste time in many case, and serve as stonewalling by the smaller groups.
 
"I vote yes, transparency in process is good for Yamatai."
 
Unfortunately we've got no way (publicly) of knowing who votes in the poll mechanism so its accuracy wouldn't be guaranteed.

The motion to close must be removed, otherwise votes will get closed without giving everyone a chance to vote.
 
The system as it presently stands requires a second to do so; this is enough of a check on the system.

Seven votes and a second, when most people don't even look at the senate of Yamatai forum, is more than enough requirement for an end to voting.

I agree with vote transparency, but I move to remove the line in question which would remove the ability to move to close.

May I get a second?
 
I move that poll topics be not prohibited, as I feel that is too limiting, and instead just be noted as poll votes not counting towards total votes in a proposal.
 
Both challenged.

I motion to change to include the following:

3. Any motion to change must have at least 3 people second it.
 
Wes said:
I motion to change to include the following:

3. Any motion to change must have at least 3 people second it.
Click to expand...

Opposed.

There is a worrying increase in proposals gaining more of this sort of wording when it is not necessary for the senate process to move smoothly.
 
Wes said:
Both challenged.

I motion to change to include the following:

3. Any motion to change must have at least 3 people second it.
Click to expand...

Motion seconded. The amendment is logical and ensures good process.
 
As the motion was challenged, it can not stand - welcome to the wonderful world.

Clearly the writer of this bill does not want to accept the projected change.

But without this change, I shall not vote for this bill. My vote remains unchanged.
 
Current votes: 2 YES, 2 NO

Come on guys, we really need this reform.
 
Come on guys, it's a good bill but it just needs a little bit of work.

Since we're blocked in this thread, let's try another proposal that will encompass all the good changes while retaining the senate's power to end bills before the seven-day time limit!
 
The bills that get ended before people have a chance to vote on them is what's broken. We have people from all over, with different time zones. How about we change it so that motions to close can only be used after 3 full days of open voting?
 
Shortening the voting time like that might be better.

The maximum voting time being 7, the minimum being 3, sounds fairly reasonable.

I'll second this change.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top