On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2017-07-23 at 17:46 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran >> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal >> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the >> > quorum is 3.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is >> > also a valid vote). >> >> Administrative note: due to the past amending properties of self >> ratification, I believe the quorum of these decisions is now 2.0. >> Honorable assessor, you may want to familiarize yourself with the new >> quorum rules. I believe your assessment of Proposal 7866 was >> technically incorrect, as the decision had a quorum of 5.0. I didn't >> complain because the lack of votes was a result of my incorrect >> distribution, and the whole mess was thus really my fault. :) > > IIRC, quorum doesn't self-ratify. (See rule 879.) > > Voting results, on the other hand, do self-ratify, but the gamestate > change created by the self-ratification is to apply the results of the > proposal, not to change the reason why it passed/failed. > > -- > ais523
Rule 879 says "If no other rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that decision is equal to the number of players who voted on the Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved at the time of that decision's initiation, minus 2." The proposal would correctly have been resolved as failed quorum, but it was't. As I understand it, the resolution was platonically invalid unit it self-ratified. The quorum was 3.0 yesterday because of the valid resolution of proposal 7865, which had five votes, but now the resolution of 7866 has become valid, so I think that set quorum at 2.0 a week ago for the purposes of the gamestate today. -Aris
