Abstains

[Gryphon Avocatio]

Why don't you guys just listen for a bit?I wrote the quorum bill that the Landsraad uses today (I think, it may have been changed by now). Now, somebody has been yelling once again about how Abstains count as Nay votes. This is wholly not the case. I wrote the quorum law to prevent this scenario.There are 30 votes in the landsraad right now. It means we need at least 15 votes cast to pass something. Simple.Under the law I wrote, Abstains count as a legitimate votes, and we only needed a majority of Yays over Nays to pass a bill. However, nobody listened to me a year ago when this came up. Somebody "decided" that abstain=nay and then got rid of abstains. Now we have a law that requires a majority of Yays over nays *and* abstains. Stupid, stupid law that is.Under the current law a vote tallied 7Y 4N 4A* wouldn't pass. Under the way I wrote it originally, it would have.Now why the hell did you change it? That's correct, because "abstains counted as nay"...which they didn't.So, my suggestion to you Landsraad folk is that you change the law back to the way Former Duke of Yardistan Gryphon Avocatio wrote it and make it so you only need more Yays than nays, and forget about the abstains. Stop grumbling about it. And for god sake, read the laws you are trying to get reevaluated because you guys made up the problem that led to this**.*I know that such a tally is impossible in the current Landsraad. But it used to be and might someday be again.**Okay, it wasn't your faults, it was the bloody live Landsraad at Sonoma a year ago. May that sort of mess never happen again. 3e knowe ek that in fourme of speche is chaunge / With-inne a thousand 3eer, and wordes tho / That hadden pris now wonder nyce and straunge / Us thenketh hem, and 3et thei spake hem so, / And spedde as wel in loue as men now do...

[Hypatia Agnesi]

Didn't we actually change it back after the live Landsraad though? I just don't know what got added to the lawbook and what didn't (not everything passed under Eoin got added), and I need to re-familiarize myself with the actual voting procedures as they stand now. *throws grenade for the hell of it*BO0O0O0O0/\/\!!!!!!

[Gryphon Avocatio]

I'm not sure how that got changed. I left for like two weeks and when I came back, Abstains were okay again. I think it may have been a decree.But it wasn't changed back so much as it was just changed again. The current law requires at least 50% of all votes cast to be Yea in order to pass, which does in fact make Abstains into Nays. I'm saying that instead of requiring 50% of all votes, instead require a\ majority of Yeas out of all of the Nay and Yea votes and not the abstains. Word it better, of course.I think that nobles should be able to freely vote Abstain, know that their neutral vote is counting towards quorum, and not have to worry that they are shooting down a bill they don't care for either way. That was my intention when I went to work on the quorum bill, and I think it's absolutely fair. 3e knowe ek that in fourme of speche is chaunge / With-inne a thousand 3eer, and wordes tho / That hadden pris now wonder nyce and straunge / Us thenketh hem, and 3et thei spake hem so, / And spedde as wel in loue as men now do...

[Fax Celestis]

The only reason I advocated abstains abolished is because they act like nays in the current situation, and I thought they did originally. Blindness Is A Blessing

[Hypatia Agnesi]

To quote from the procedures,Quote:Clause 4. In order for a standard bill or act to be considered passed, one half (1/2) of all votes distributed to the Nobles must be cast in the affirmative or both one half (1/2) of all nobles eligible to vote must have cast their votes, and one half (1/2) of all votes cast must be in the affirmative. Any bill which fails to meet these requirements shall not be passed.You're right. This should be changed back, since Abstains are technically Nays, as this is written now. Care to draw up a bill? *throws grenade for the hell of it*BO0O0O0O0/\/\!!!!!!

[Shyriath]

Quote:I left for like two weeks and when I came back, Abstains were okay again. I think it may have been a decree.*Raises hand* I can explain the whole situation.It was a Landsraad bill, actually... I wanted to bring abstains back, so I wrote one. Its original intent was to both bring back abstains as a permissible vote and to give them some kind of status separate from yeas or nays. And it passed... but when it was discovered, much to my chagrin, that I had worded the latter half of the bill so badly as to make it unworkable, said half got struck out. This left abstains as a viable choice for voting, but because the rules for what constituted a passing vote had been restored when the other half of my bill had been struck out, it left abstains functionally equivalent to nays. And although I had intended to propose a fix to the situation, I never got around it to it somehow, and neither did anyone else.Thus, the present situation. But I would be perfectly happy to support another attempt to restore the abstain to its former glory.