[Vote] Subsidy to the Embers of Aten and Kalidor
Open in chat • 12 posts (analysis)
• Page 1 of 1
"We propose a one time subsidy of 200
be made available to Kalidor and the Embers of Aten, to aid in the upgrading of their trade fleets, and to promote trade with other Union members.
The vote options are: yes (this subsidy should take place) and no (this subsidy should not take place). Only one option may be chosen.
This vote will end September 18th. If the decision is approved, the subsidy will be made available on Turn 16."
Votes so far:
be made available to Kalidor and the Embers of Aten, to aid in the upgrading of their trade fleets, and to promote trade with other Union members.The vote options are: yes (this subsidy should take place) and no (this subsidy should not take place). Only one option may be chosen.
This vote will end September 18th. If the decision is approved, the subsidy will be made available on Turn 16."
Votes so far:
- Embers of Aten:
- Free Peoples of Wrarrbo: No
- High Chiefdom of Skuldda: No
- Interregnum Democracy of Scir: No
- Kalidor: Yes
- Kingdom of Komès: Yes
- Kingdom of Meritonia: Yes
- Liberal Assencia: No
- Lifebringer Clans: Yes
- New Communist Imperium of the Rising Suns of Deominius: Yes
- Praetorian Empire: No
- Principality of Suma: Yes
- Silver Forests of Remunzia: No
- Socialist Republic of Niom: Yes
- Sundarian Federation: Yes
- Unified Republic of Darya: Abstains
- Veolian Commonwealth: Abstains
- Techno Zaibatsu: (Currently a Fringe World)
-

The Lifebringer Clans - Faction
The Lifebringer Clans vote "yes".
Kalidor votes Yes
-

Nehket Aeka - PC
The Veolian Commonwealth abstains from voting
The Free Peoples of Wrarrbo detest this meddling in the economy. We vote NO.
-

Praetorian Empire - Faction
The Praetorian Empire agrees with the Free Peoples of Wrarrbo on this matter. We vote No.
" The opportunity to trade will eventually benefit us All. " The Sundarian Federation votes "Yes"
@admin, ik mis de Mioman Colonists in de listing
@admin, ik mis de Mioman Colonists in de listing
-

Praetorian Empire - Faction
((OOC: The Mioman Colonists are currently a Core world, they currently provide the minister for the Ministry of Finance. Core worlds have no vote.
http://fwurg.xs4all.nl:81/dokuwiki/ic:core_worlds ))
http://fwurg.xs4all.nl:81/dokuwiki/ic:core_worlds ))
Liberal Assencia agrees with the Praetorian Empire. We vote NO.
The Unified Republick of Darya abstains from voting
-

Mercury - Storyteller
((OOC: The official deadline was September 18th. I feel justified calling an abstains for the Embers of Aten.
However, this also brings the issue to an unfortunately debatable result.
At the time of the vote, no voting law regarding what constitutes a majority had been written up properly. When requested by the Veolian Commonwealth player, I explained to them that the vote required an absolute majority and that abstaining nations were counted for the total. This would mean 9 votes out of 17 yes were required for the motion to pass. Under those conditions the vote will not pass, yet if the Embers had voted, I doubt anyone would disagree with me that they would have voted yes and thus the vote would have passed.
We've run into issue regarding timing and such before on votes and I really want to avoid screwing anyone over because of timing issues, but I also cannot leave the vote open any longer.
In a previous similar incident I have rules against the Veolian Commonwealth - the Bozzy Spine Extension did not go their way, despite their intentions to act on certain matters - miscommunication was at fault there and this fault was with me. As such, their position on that matter was stronger than that of the Embers in this case, as they are undeniably late with their post.
Though it is clear to me the Embers intention would be to vote yes, I cannot consider this in my ruling - the fact of the matter is that they did not vote and as such their vote does not carry. I cannot rule against the Veolian Commonwealth on one matter because of unfortunate timing (on my part) and then rule for the Embers on an identical matter where they are late on the vote.
Having said that, the result posted above stand. 8 votes Yes, 6 votes No, 3 Abstains. As I explained the matter to the Veolian Commonwealth, this would mean the vote fails and no subsidy is passed.
To be honest, this gnawed at me for a bit and I was really hoping the Ember vote would be in by this time, since that'd save me a lot of headache and hopefully ensure nobody would feel like they were left hanging.
I read back on the earlier vote regarding the Bozzy Spine, when I noticed this post:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70#p268
In it are the rules laid out for the Bozzy Spine vote. It confirms the requirement for an absolute majority (more than half), but it also lists that abstaining votes are not counted on the total. This is contrary to what I explained to the Veolian Commonwealth.
To make matters more complex, using the rules established in that earlier vote would result in 8 votes for, 6 against, which would carry the motion.
I did not expect the matter to get into such a precarious balance with multiple possible interpretations depending on what base you follow.
Considering this matter carefully, I still believe I cannot justify "autoing" the Ember vote to yes. I must apply the same rules I did for the Bozzy Spine vote to this one, even if it means someone will be worse off then they wanted to be due to being unable to act in time.
However, in applying those rules, consistency demands I should also use the same principle to the voting majority rules. That means my explanation to the Veolian Commonwealth regarding the effect of abstaining from the vote was incorrect. I apologise for this.
I conclude that after carefully considering all the sides of the matter, the motion carries with an 8 / 14 absolute majority. Since the Praetorian Empire seems to have no trouble finding customers with or without this subsidy, I do not feel that this places an unfair disadvantage against them or the Veolian Commonwealth even if they were looking for a different outcome to the vote.
I also conclude we need a much more clearly defined voting system to ensure votes are carried out properly. I have assigned this my top priority, and I am open to suggestions on this matter.))
However, this also brings the issue to an unfortunately debatable result.
At the time of the vote, no voting law regarding what constitutes a majority had been written up properly. When requested by the Veolian Commonwealth player, I explained to them that the vote required an absolute majority and that abstaining nations were counted for the total. This would mean 9 votes out of 17 yes were required for the motion to pass. Under those conditions the vote will not pass, yet if the Embers had voted, I doubt anyone would disagree with me that they would have voted yes and thus the vote would have passed.
We've run into issue regarding timing and such before on votes and I really want to avoid screwing anyone over because of timing issues, but I also cannot leave the vote open any longer.
In a previous similar incident I have rules against the Veolian Commonwealth - the Bozzy Spine Extension did not go their way, despite their intentions to act on certain matters - miscommunication was at fault there and this fault was with me. As such, their position on that matter was stronger than that of the Embers in this case, as they are undeniably late with their post.
Though it is clear to me the Embers intention would be to vote yes, I cannot consider this in my ruling - the fact of the matter is that they did not vote and as such their vote does not carry. I cannot rule against the Veolian Commonwealth on one matter because of unfortunate timing (on my part) and then rule for the Embers on an identical matter where they are late on the vote.
Having said that, the result posted above stand. 8 votes Yes, 6 votes No, 3 Abstains. As I explained the matter to the Veolian Commonwealth, this would mean the vote fails and no subsidy is passed.
To be honest, this gnawed at me for a bit and I was really hoping the Ember vote would be in by this time, since that'd save me a lot of headache and hopefully ensure nobody would feel like they were left hanging.
I read back on the earlier vote regarding the Bozzy Spine, when I noticed this post:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70#p268
In it are the rules laid out for the Bozzy Spine vote. It confirms the requirement for an absolute majority (more than half), but it also lists that abstaining votes are not counted on the total. This is contrary to what I explained to the Veolian Commonwealth.
To make matters more complex, using the rules established in that earlier vote would result in 8 votes for, 6 against, which would carry the motion.
I did not expect the matter to get into such a precarious balance with multiple possible interpretations depending on what base you follow.
Considering this matter carefully, I still believe I cannot justify "autoing" the Ember vote to yes. I must apply the same rules I did for the Bozzy Spine vote to this one, even if it means someone will be worse off then they wanted to be due to being unable to act in time.
However, in applying those rules, consistency demands I should also use the same principle to the voting majority rules. That means my explanation to the Veolian Commonwealth regarding the effect of abstaining from the vote was incorrect. I apologise for this.
I conclude that after carefully considering all the sides of the matter, the motion carries with an 8 / 14 absolute majority. Since the Praetorian Empire seems to have no trouble finding customers with or without this subsidy, I do not feel that this places an unfair disadvantage against them or the Veolian Commonwealth even if they were looking for a different outcome to the vote.
I also conclude we need a much more clearly defined voting system to ensure votes are carried out properly. I have assigned this my top priority, and I am open to suggestions on this matter.))
"The vote is now officially closed. There is no vote from the Embers of Aten, which defaults to an abstain. We have 8 votes Yes, 6 votes No and 3 abstains. The motion carries.
200
is awarded to the Embers of Aten and Kalidor this turn.
I will contact the Veolian Commonwealth regarding a detailed law on their proposed subsidies which if timing allows will be opened for vote this week, or next week at the latest.
Thank you all"
200
is awarded to the Embers of Aten and Kalidor this turn. I will contact the Veolian Commonwealth regarding a detailed law on their proposed subsidies which if timing allows will be opened for vote this week, or next week at the latest.
Thank you all"
12 posts (analysis)
• Page 1 of 1




