Home

Vote: 320 - Absentee Voting

Approve
67% (6 votes)
Reject
33% (3 votes)
Abstain
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 9
  • By ctmf at 06/30/2008 - 21:53
  • Login or register to post comments
 

Absentee voting
A player may specify the conditions under which he or she would vote 'yes' in advance. His/her vote will be cast in accordance with his or her instructions based on the conditions existing at the time the vote is called. If the instructions are unclear and the vote could affect the fate of the proposal, a judgment may be invoked. The judge, if judgment is necessary, must consider abstention the preferred option when the instructions are ambiguous. A player's explicit vote always takes precedence over a vote by standing order

Furthermore, a player may designate another player, or combination of players, to cast his/her vote, analogous to a MeFiNo special power of attorney.

All standing voting orders or stand-in designations must have a stated reason for absence and a reasonable expiration date which shall not exceed 3 months.

A MeFiNo wiki page will be created to record players' standing voting orders and stand-in designations. No player may edit another player's standing orders or designations.

All rules proposed after this rule must have a title that is not the same as any current rule in effect. Rules may be referred to by title as well as by number.

#
  • By ctmf at 06/30/2008 - 22:00
 
 

I have a special reason for choosing 3 months, since that's how long I'm going to be quarantined on a submarine incommunicado in the near future.

#
  • By ctmf at 06/30/2008 - 22:01
 
 

I'm all for this proposal because I believe that it honors one of America's heroes. Or perhaps the hero of some other submarine-owning nation.

Also I consent to be nominated to vote for ctmf in his absence, as I swear that all votes cast by me in his name will reflect true American values. Or the values of whatever submarining nation to which he belongs.

#
  • By 1 at 07/01/2008 - 03:57
 
 

I don't understand the last part of this proposal, concerning rule titling.

#
  • By backseatpilot at 07/01/2008 - 06:10
 
 

It's just saying that no two rules can have the same name, in order to prevent gaming of the system by the unscrupulous ones who live among us, working to undermine the security and serenity due all submarinefaring nations.

#
  • By 1 at 07/01/2008 - 07:17
 
 

I will bow to the obviously superior wisdom of AAA and 1 on this particular proposal.

#
  • By backseatpilot at 07/01/2008 - 13:13
 
 

I wonder if my nation has submarines? Probably not.

#
  • By shelleycat at 07/01/2008 - 14:54
 
 

jay, i'm surprised you voted against this. What's up? What do you see that I don't?

#
  • By gerryblog at 07/01/2008 - 14:58
 
 

I've voted against everything lately for points sake, but would happily vote Yes to do away with down-vote bonuses, and likely quite a few proposals thereafter.

#
  • By jay at 07/01/2008 - 21:27
 
 

I changed my vote, because I want to be like jay.

#
  • By Aaron A Aaronson at 07/02/2008 - 00:11
 
 

But I was being more like you. Who's driving this train?

#
  • By jay at 07/02/2008 - 01:05
 
 

flatluigi didn't vote on this -- anyone know if he's still "in"?

#
  • By gerryblog at 07/02/2008 - 19:18
 
 

Hm. Too bad. I was going to designate AAA as my stand-in voter.

#
  • By ctmf at 07/02/2008 - 19:41
 
 

ctmf, I was waiting to see how things shook out before I voted. It'll pass if no one does anything crazy. Which clearly means *I* should be your stand-in voter.

#
  • By gerryblog at 07/02/2008 - 19:48
 
 

Hooray!

#
  • By gerryblog at 07/02/2008 - 21:58
 
 

320-291 * (6/9) = 19 (rounded)
jay, ssg, and AAA all get 10 points too.

#
  • By gerryblog at 07/02/2008 - 22:00
 
 

Wow! I'm on the love train.
♫ People all over the world, join hands...♫

#
  • By Aaron A Aaronson at 07/03/2008 - 03:27