AMENDMENT: Shall we increase the nomination period?

Pedrunn · April 7, 2003, 13:29

This amendment basicly increses the nomination period from 3 days to 5 days. Changing the section 1-e of the Article V.

Below is the change in the Constitution.

From:

"(e) At the start of the election process, the Court must start a nomination thread. All citizens who wish to be candidates for an office must publicly express their nomination in this thread. For this they have three days."

To:

"(e) At the start of the election process, the Court must start a nomination thread. All citizens who wish to be candidates for an office must publicly express their nomination in this thread. For this they have five days."

This poll expires in Five days (12/04/2003)

Zaphod Beeblebrox · April 7, 2003, 14:12

3 days is very short, not to say too short

H Tower · April 9, 2003, 16:42

i like the change

Tamerlin · April 9, 2003, 18:38

I agree, 5 days seems a good compromise as it is neither too short neither too long.

Gilgamensch · April 10, 2003, 03:53

I must say:

I voted abstain. The idea sounds good, but will it really change the outcome?

We would need to get more people involved, but for any reason it is just a few of those 'registers', which really participate........

Zaphod Beeblebrox · April 10, 2003, 05:06

i rather think we should clean the registry of those who have been inactive more than 2 months.

Frozzy · April 11, 2003, 18:13

Here here!

mapfi · April 12, 2003, 17:01

yep we should - i mentioned the idea a while ago, but markos seems not to have time for us demogamers... pity that this amendment failed!

Pedrunn · April 12, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

i rather think we should clean the registry of those who have been inactive more than 2 months.

Thats an excellent idea. Lets strike to have this feature added.

Martin Gühmann · April 12, 2003, 17:49

Well I was very busy during this week. A Java course for all day. So 4 hours to late and only one vote is missing if we use the formula and round down otherwise two votes are missing. Maybe you should keep such a poll open for 5 days instaed of 3 days from my interpretation the 3 days are just a suggestion.

-Martin

mapfi · April 13, 2003, 07:10

Thge poll was open five days, and no that's not a suggestion - it is required with amendments.

H Tower · April 13, 2003, 23:35

correct me if I'm wrong, but this amendment didn't receive the support neccesary to pass

Gilgamensch · April 14, 2003, 03:26

H Tower and other's:

We need 1/6 of the members, meaning 55/6=9.166666 so in other words 10 votes.

I don't think we'll ever get anymore those 10 votes..............

Pedrunn · April 14, 2003, 05:13

Quote:

We need 1/6 of the members, meaning 55/6=9.166666 so in other words 10 votes.

Dont you think it is 9 votes?

The amendment didnt pass

Zaphod Beeblebrox · April 14, 2003, 05:19

no 9*6=54<55

Gilgamensch · April 14, 2003, 05:23

So, even if I wouldn't have abstained, it would have failed...............

Zaphod Beeblebrox · April 14, 2003, 05:33

i'm not sure, iirc this poll expired before our 55th citizen enrigestered, so it would have passed, had you voted yes.

Gilgamensch · April 14, 2003, 05:38

I must admit, I didn't check. Locutus would need to confirm.......

Zaphod Beeblebrox · April 14, 2003, 05:43

how does the poll work?
do votes get deleted, if the people who voted leave the group? if not, that could be a way to change the con

Gilgamensch · April 14, 2003, 06:05

Not sure, what you mean............

Zaphod Beeblebrox · April 14, 2003, 06:16

what i mean is:
we want to change the con in the way that nonactive citizens revoke their rights. lets say 9 people vote yes, 9 of 55 ain't enough, 9 of 46 is. so those 9 people quit the dg after voting and reenter after the amendment has passed, barely legal, but not completely illegal neither.

Gilgamensch · April 14, 2003, 06:30

Now I see what you mean............

I wouldn't really consider it 'illegal' to kick somebody out, who hasn't voted or posted in milleniums...............I just consider him:

passed away

His son/daughter would need to apply for a new citizenship

Zaphod Beeblebrox · April 14, 2003, 06:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Now I see what you mean............

i'm not sure if you really got it

Gilgamensch · April 14, 2003, 06:50

Just taking it a bit further