root wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> root wrote:
>>
>>> Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
>>> work? Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
>>> as "preventing a proposal from taking effect", a Power-3 secured
>>> change per Rule 106?
>> No more than defining the F/A threshold needed for adoption. The only
>> rules that "prevent a proposal from taking effect" (even if it's
>> adopted) are 106 itself and 2034.
>
> But then securing "preventing a proposal from taking effect" is rather
> ineffective, if it can just be circumvented by messing with the
> proposal some other way instead.
I think these are all the rules directly relevant to this issue:
106 (Power=3) AI defined
if decision = ADOPTED then {
proposal's Power = min(4,AI)
proposal takes effect
}
955 (Power=3) if !quorum then decision = FAILED QUORUM else {
if ordinary or democratic then {
VI = F/A
if VI > 1 and VI >= AI then ADOPTED else REJECTED
}
}
2196 (Power=3) AI exists -> ordinary or democratic
879 (Power=2) defines quorum
2019 (Power=2) increases AI
1950 (Power=3) democratic eligibility and voting limit
2156 (Power=2) ordinary eligibility and voting limit
Off the top of my head, a Power=1 rule could (if created) allow
decreasing AI, and/or re-define "ratio" and shift it from 754(3)
to 754(2). Anything else?
