[Shakerr]On Congress debate: get some balls (Proposed by Artemivanov)
Day 1,165, 18:18
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by Shakerr
Dear citizens of eNetherlands,
I would like to share the following with you, a debate currently being discussed inside congress of eNetherlands.
Proposal inside congress of eNetherlands proposed by Artemivanov:
Quote: "Proposal for new congress rules:
D) A vote can only be cast with the following terminology: “Yes”, “No”, “Neutral” or “Abstain”.
"Yes", "No" and "Neutral" count for the quorum as determined in article 4.3B. "Abstain" does not count for the quorum. A “Neutral” vote does not count towards “Yes” or “No”.
into:
D) A vote can only be cast with the following terminology: “Yes” or “No”.
I really think our congress should be more powerfull / clear. Get some balls and express your opinion."; - end of quote.
My reflection:
The congress is our main political institution as nation. Inside congress the direction our eNation is being discussed and decisions are being made here. Therefore it is important to keep participation of congressman during votes high. Sometimes it's difficult to reach the qoutum to met the congress rules to get a decision made by congress. This is why i put some questionmarks on this proposal.
I wrote the following on the enetherlands.nl forum which reflects what i think about this proposal which touches the democratic institution of the eNL congress:
"If you want to keep participating high, you need the keep the "neutral" vote, especially as it currently counts to reach a qoutum.
Therefore to me, this proposal seems to make no sense at all. This proposal isn't about making the congress having "get some balls', but just to make it weaker, because you will have congressman who won't "sign" in on debates, which means it also doesn't count to reach the qoutum. If you value a more democratic eNetherlands, than you vote "no" on this proposal."
End of message out of eNL congress, to be continued!
Shakerr
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Partly agreed, it will be an interesting voting round.
i agree, neutral is favourite with newer players. Abstain could be removed imho, since in that case you can just do that, abstain from voting.
But saying that you are abstaining notifies everyone that you are aware of the vote and are choosing not to vote. Otherwise you could have people PMing you to vote even though you're actively abstaining....
I wonder what these neutral voters vote ingame?
(only 'yes' and 'no' option.)
@crookclaw you can also shine in absence ;p
@Artem, the abstainers in-game don't have an 'abstain' button either
@crookclaw biggest problem I have with abstain is that it doesn't count for the quorum, quite some votes have (nearly) been turned down because of 'abstain'
I agree, keep neutral and abstain can be removed.
Indeed, then keep neutral and remove abstain, or because abstain in a more used term in voting than neutral, make abstain count to the quorum and remove neutral
@Daniel Parker: keeping 'abstain' won't hurt anyone. If people don't want to vote on a proposal, they can either just not show up or at least show their activity and vote 'abstain'. If some proposals don't reach the quorum, it's not because there's an 'abstain' option: it's because people don't want to vote. If there wasn't an 'abstain' option, I think they just wouldn't show up.
And by the way, the proposal of removing 'neutral' and keeping 'abstain' is, indeed, quite stupid. If you really have to delete an option, then 'abstain' should go. Still, I don't think it's necessary.
voting shouldn't be about showing activity, but about making a point about a proposal. Voting 'abstain' serves no logical purpose, it's a waste of a vote. If there is only yes-no-neutral (as being proposed right now) abstain will be the new neutral and it wil probably kill lotta proposals, since they won't meet the quorum. Remove abstain, and maybe even neutral too.
"voting shouldn't be about showing activity, but about making a point about a proposal."
+1
Removing abstain will hurt progress in the medal of the nederlandse leeuw, because it requires participation in X% of the votes.
To be fair though, simply voting abstain every time there's a vote on something shouldn't be something that gets a medal....
@Crookclaw: I agree. The 'abstain' option is only there for situations when any other vote would not be appropriate, while still showing your activity.
To all 'abstain' bashers: deleting this option isn't a solution to anything. Then why not keep it?
Well, when I played over a year ago, this was also a discussion. There are advantages to the way it works right now (like the 'Neutral' vote). On the other hand, I would like to ask, because maybe it has changed. Do you have to reach a certain percentage of votes in favor? (lik: a propaosal is only accepted with a percentage of 50% for yes) Or is a majority of yes enough?
@Nelson Calve: in most cases, a majority of 60% yes is needed, in other cases a majority of 50% + 1. See the congress rules, article 4.2 and 4.3.
If we keep abstain we should at least make it count for the quorum. Maybe even merge neutral and abstain.
Then I would like to start a new discussion if there is need of a neutral vote..
For example:
10 votes yes
5 votes no
5 votes neutral
in this case, there is a 50% vote for yes, so the proposal is not accepted.
But, more people are for it then against it, so imho this proposal should be accepted. A 'neutral' vote is just a 'no' with a different name..
@Nelson Calve: I don't think it works that way. The neutral votes don't count in the decision, they only serve to reach the quorum of 10 votes. If you strike the neutral votes off, there's a clear majority in favor.
Okay..
Well A year ago it did work this way.
Hey GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are you talking about law and blabla...
WE HAVE A FIGHT TO WIN AGAINST OUR NEUTRAL ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!
STOP TALKING....BETTER ACTIING!!!!
I think we should merge neutral and abstain. As in the status quo the two are already interchangable. There is no need for both.