(Moved to Vote)Names Ratification Decision. Demand a restart of the vote!!!

[Flavius Nevitta]

Please restart the vote and formulate the sentence more clearly. I don't know if this was done on purpose or not (I'm pretty sure it was not btw). I don't want to attack anyone but it seems this sentence is formulated so vaguely that many people don't seem to understand what it's about.

take a look here to see what I mean:

vote




YES, is the correct answer if you DON'T WANT the new names. The initial post is more than just confusing! But it means:

A poll shall be opened with the title 'Do you like the new Medieval Latin Names'.

Yes or No

Now the problem:

If this decision passes with a plurality of the votes the names shall be retained, if it fails the names shall be reverted to the way they were before.

Which means, if we decide that there IS GOING TO BE a vote on the new names here now in this vote, THEN a vote shall be started, which if it "passes with a plurality of the votes the names shall be retained, if it fails the names shall be reverted to the way they were before."

This is how I understood it. Others seem to understand it differently, so in either case there are several votes gone wrong.

I think this is confusing and should be formulated more clearly and restarted. Saying:

"Do you want to have a decision on the new names? Yes or No"

[deRougemont]

I support. The wording in the current vote is crap. I had to read it 3 times before voting and 2 times after to make sure I picked the right answer.

[Flavius Nevitta]

And if I read your post in the voting thread it seems we both understood the complete opposite thing.

[deRougemont]

Rofl, well, I guess it depends on which part of it you read. There are actually two very different things being voted on in this bill. The first sentence is about creating a poll for a vote. The second sentence is for voting yae or nay for the new names.

So, uh, well, I guess technically I would vote "yes" for the first part of the bill and "no" for the second part. For those who read only the first part, they certainly could have voted to the opposite of their intentions.

Funny how such a short and simple bill can be so messed up...

[the Black Prince]

additionally, a plurality of votes is unlawful. a decision must pass with a 2/3rd majority.


All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour
all bills is both Decisions and Amendments



which raises a second question

2/3rds in favour of keeping the new names or 2/3ds in favour of scrapping them? depending on how you phrase the question its biased against one of the options! lol

[Garbarsardar]

Indeed. If one did not follow the discussion the choices are somewhat unclear. I think the Curator must see to it...

[Perikles]

You should have said something before supporting then!

Names Ratification Decision

Proposer: Perikles
Supporters: dR, Raven Darkwing, Arakorn-eir

This vote is on the current naming structure of the Curia. If this vote passes with a plurality of Yes votes then the new Medieval Latin ranks shall be kept. If this vote fails due to a plurality of No votes we shall revert to the Old Roman Rank names

Is that better?

Let's just ignore the 2/3 bit of the Syntagma for all of our sakes, please tBP, just this once let's ignore it...

[Flavius Nevitta]

Much better lol

I followed the discussion but when I saw the finaly wording in the vote thread I had to think twice what was meant.

[Perikles]

So now we need 3 supporters and all that again...meh.

[deRougemont]

I support, much better Perk.

[Hotspur]

I almost added a warning at the end of my "Voted" about this...

I do not support. If you can't be bothered to actually take the time and read the bill you're voting for and get confused, tough.

[deRougemont]

I almost added a warning at the end of my "Voted" about this...

I do not support. If you can't be bothered to actually take the time and read the bill you're voting for and get confused, tough.

Give me a break Hotspur, I had to care for my moonshine last night.

[Elric von Rabenfels]

@Hotspur:

The problem is, I followed all the discussions about the bill and the names, and STILL was veeeryy confused about the vote. So dont be arrogant and tell such things

I do not support. If you can't be bothered to actually take the time and read the bill you're voting for and get confused, tough.

And about the restart of the vote, I strongly support, if it means anything

[deRougemont]

And about the restart of the vote, I strongly support, if it means anything[/COLOR]

It does Raven, bills now need the support of two Pats and two Civs...

[Hotspur]

@Hotspur:

The problem is, I followed all the discussions about the bill and the names, and STILL was veeeryy confused about the vote. So dont be arrogant and tell such things

Not arrogant, just a teeny bit irritated. The discussion about the new names went on for a month, everything got settled despite more than a little resistance then all of a sudden a few senior members wake up from their nap, pitch a fit and bingo bango we have a vote. Now people are complaining because the wording of the vote was confusing to some and now we are going to probably have a second vote on an issue that was supposed to be implemented last November. Lets put this thing to bed already and move on.

[Arakorn]

I support.

[the Black Prince]

how about

Curial Decision
Should we revert to the old latin names?


Yes
No
Abstain


short, sweet incredibly simple

[Perikles]

Genius, I support.

[Elric von Rabenfels]

Support! 110%

[Arakorn]

Me too.