Talk:League of Cities/Resolutions

Sealane clearly did not understand the previous vote, I thought we were voting him INTO the position, not out of it. Regardless, the bill was passed. RLcrafters (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2015 (EDT)

Automatic exclusion from the vote,

Hi just a quick suggestion to allow for a less biased vote, I think that any votes where nominations of players in the LoC are made, (eg this coming election) that any nominees should be automatically excluded from the vote because it's quite obvious who they will most likely vote for. I think this change should be made effective immeadiately. RLcrafters (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

RL, that is a good point. I will discuss it with other people when I go on minecraft later. Camelfantasy (Meh) 06:42, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

Actually, I think it may be a better idea to allow nominees to vote, but NOT for themselves.

I agree with that last idea, but it's also noteworthy that of the 6 candidates, not a single one voted for themselves. Whilst this may have been due to honour, I think a rule explicitly banning nominess from voting for themselves would clarify things. JakD2000 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

Resolution 2 Ruling Policy

Hey guys! Though I'm not a member of League of Cities, I really like this voting thing you guys are doing. I love to see your guys vote fairly, but in Resolution 2, it seems that you guys have broken your own policy.

 "In the event of a tie, the General Assembly Chief will also have 1 vote." - Policy 1050 (Voting), League of Cities

Though it may seem that it fits the criteria of the situation, the committee has failed to see that the General Assembly Chief, JamesGaming, has already cast his vote during the voting process, causing the vote to end in a tie between _frozen and RLcrafters. Recently, JamesGaming had ruled on Resolution 2 by casting the final vote. However, James had already cast his vote, causing his vote to be worth two votes, which breaks Policy 1050.

Layman's terms: James had already voted, so if he voted again it would be two votes for him. However, the policy does not explicitly say that.

Let's be clear that I'm not doing this to cause controversy. I'm doing this to make sure there's not corruption in the system, because I like this voting system that is set up. I hope this gets resolved soon!

P.S: Ignore my undos earlier, I shouldn't be changing the policy to make it fit since I'm not part of LoC, camelfantasy can rule on this. MinecraftYoshi26 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

James was the last person to vote in the list, at the time bringing both frozen and RL to 12 votes each. However, as camel had voted for RL initially, his vote was the tiebreaker and hence why RL got the position. Click here! or Click Here! 19:18, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

Counting James' original vote, it adds up to 12 votes each. Here is the table reorganized to show the votes with other votes for JohnNotTech and AP_Rednax removed. Click on the [Expand] to show the table and info.

City	Representative	Vote	Totals
Formosa	camelfantasy	RLcrafters	12 votes (11 full votes + 2 half votes)
Arctic Plains SMP	sesese9	RLcrafters
Birchwood Lake City	PresidentQwerty	RLcrafters
Kenthurst	AlikSong	RLcrafters
Whiteley	AP_Rednax	RLcrafters
Seaview	jamess2912	RLcrafters
Elecna Bay	mine_man_	RLcrafters
Whitechapel	_frozen	RLcrafters
Siletz	MeetMeInSpace	RLcrafters
Grayzen (1/2 vote)	Cardinalland	RLcrafters
Royal Ferry	MIKE24Dude	RLcrafters
Xilia (1/2 vote)	Yellowitcher	RLcrafters
Ellesume	allifarki	RLcrafters
Brunswick	_hnt	_frozen	12 votes
Laclede Shared Municipality	jphgolf4321	_frozen
Beaufort	frankbros429	_frozen
Armada	Ardyan	_frozen
City-State of Kitania	ImNotKitty	_frozen
Sealane	RLcrafters	_frozen
Accerton	CaptainChimpy	_frozen
Lancaster	Acela_Pug	_frozen
Wythern	baseball02	_frozen
Janghwa	HanSangYoon	_frozen
Astoria	TonyTajiri	_frozen
Snowtopic	Duechayapol	_frozen

My main point is that JamesGaming had been given two votes. The chart above shows the votes BEFORE JamesGaming made the tiebreaker vote. The highlighted vote is James' vote, before the tiebreaker was made. JamesGaming, the General Assembly Chief, according to the policy, is allwoed one vote, which he used already. The policy doesn't necessarily say that he gets two votes (which if it did, it seems a bit unfair), it says he gets one vote. (A better way could be to make the people who voted for JohnNotTech and AP_Rednax re-vote between these two.) That's maybe the confusion. I hope that all made sense. (P.S.: The only reason I'm bringing this up is to make sure you guys are consistent, I don't like inconsistencies :P)MinecraftYoshi26 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

I see Yoshi's point. James, as a General Assembly Chief, should NOT have voted in any election unless he is called upon. Therefore, I think that we should remove james' vote in the first round, and have the other people who voted NOT for either myself or for RL, and have them decide how to vote. Once that is determined, if it still ends up in a tie then I will concede because its not a secret who James voted for.

I will also make an proposal for several things related to the voting sections to prevent this from ever happening again. Frozen (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2015 (EDT)

Can we please start voting?

Can we please start voting on resolution 4 as all nomination spots are occupied. I think there should also be a time cap on how long a nomination process can last for. RLcrafters (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2015 (EST)

Resolution proposal: Rename "Chief" to "Head"

To avoid confusing a head of an organization or organ, with me. :P chiefbozx • talk • contribs 00:41, 26 November 2015 (EST)

Voting

For Resolution 4, Kitty voted for himself, which to clarify, isn't that in direct violation of Policy 1052? The policy states a representative may not vote for themselves, except for in the event that there is only one other candidate. There are three others in this resolution. Thanks! _hnt (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2015 (EST)

I have removed Kitty's vote from Res. 4 and left a notice for him to vote for someone else. Thanks, Camelfantasy (Meh) 10:41, 26 November 2015 (EST)

Resolution 6

I had pretty much unanimous support for Resolution 4, and if you vote in favor of Resolution 6, you are essentially disregarding your previous vote. I'm not KittyCat11231's evil twin! (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2015 (EST)

The only reason we voted for you in Resolution 4 was that you were the best candidate and there was no rule preventing it at the time, even though it was unfair. Now that a Resolution has come about banning situations like this, it seems like the best thing to do.ZOMG im finishing the A50 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2015 (EST)

How is it unfair? I got a majority vote. If you didn't want the deputy secretariat also holding another position you should've nominated another candidate. I'm not KittyCat11231's evil twin! (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Kitty has a point there. I think the best thing would be for the rule to only affect future voting. All officers will be reelected in August, at which point Kitty will be limited to one position. `Camelfantasy (Meh)

The point I was trying to get across was that even though the original election was unfair, kitty was the best candidate out of all the people. The idea of elections is to vote for the best candidate following the rules. Everyone followed the rules at the time, if a slight bit warped.ZOMG im finishing the A50 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2015 (EST)

You didn't answer my original question. How was the original election unfair? Nominations were open to all League of Cities members and you were free to nominate your own candidate. You chose to vote for me instead. I'm not KittyCat11231's evil twin! (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2015 (EST)

Collapsible Resolutions

I think that implementing LD's system of collapsing finished Resolutions would be a great idea to save/clean up the space on the viewing page. Thoughts? Camelfantasy (M e h) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (EST)

Go for it, Also remove all Vetoed Resulutions from the Allowed Resulutions Page, they shouldn't be there

---

We have an existing poll running about my proposal that features archiving the resolutions. As of now, the majority approves the poll, and it's unlikely it'll conclude with a rejection considering there are 2 days left. If you perform this change right now, you would be disrespecting the poll and therefore all voters, which wouldn't be very good. I'd say that we start a new poll after the deadline of the current one about deciding whether to collapse or archive. --Ardyan - director of stupid and pointless since 2016 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2016 (EST)