Re: (Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act

Trinity Sector Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:14 pm

I do not want to cause a split within the World Court, even though I do believe the act has passed, I will not risk a fight on my calculations. My request to Scouting, Former VP to Eurussia or Eurussia, Founder of the Region and Author of The WASC Act and Former President to the WASC, to prove that my calculations are correct.

Until then, this act is frozen from affect until corrections in my error is made.

Serenarea Sat Jun 13, 2015 9:08 am

Marscida wrote:Let's not make futule heartstrokes to me, here;

60% on 9 (West Phoenicia has been removed) is 5.4

The act states a quorum on voters, not votes FOR

Therefore,

3 for. 3 abstain. 2 negative. 8/9 on yhe voting base the quorum is reached 88.88%

It states "it shall maintain its voting requirements of sixty six percent concurrence (agreement) of all its voting member states to enforce any executive, legislative, or judicial action," which basically means: sixty six percent of the voters of the proposal must be in favor. For this to pass, 5 out of 8 voters must be in favor. It really wouldn't make sense if the votes against the proposal are used to help it ratify. And if it really was based on the quorum of voters, why vote on it at all if you don't want it to pass?

This is nothing against you or your proposal but the rules of the SC must be enforced.

Great Eurussia Sat Jun 13, 2015 9:33 am

Serenarea wrote:
Marscida wrote:Let's not make futule heartstrokes to me, here;

60% on 9 (West Phoenicia has been removed) is 5.4

The act states a quorum on voters, not votes FOR

Therefore,

3 for. 3 abstain. 2 negative. 8/9 on yhe voting base the quorum is reached 88.88%

It states "it shall maintain its voting requirements of sixty six percent concurrence (agreement) of all its voting member states to enforce any executive, legislative, or judicial action," which basically means: sixty six percent of the voters of the proposal must be in favor. For this to pass, 5 out of 8 voters must be in favor. It really wouldn't make sense if the votes against the proposal are used to help it ratify. And if it really was based on the quorum of voters, why vote on it at all if you don't want it to pass?

This is nothing against you or your proposal but the rules of the SC must be enforced.

As the former President of the Security Council, Eurussia concurs. This is the standard and sole formula under the WASC Act. Previously, all SC members are counted in the final tally, but due to time difference and various inactivity, those not voting SC members where removed from the final tally and only those who voted are counted in the final tally.

From there, SC must determine the 66% of the total voting nations, assuming there were 8 nations who participated in the vote, regardless of their votes, therefore, 5 votes is the legal approving vote (rounded off from 5.28 since the '.28' cannot count for a single vote).

Finally, if 5 votes of the 8 votes were in favor, the proposal is officially passed into law. If 5 votes of the 8 votes were against, the proposal is officially rejected. If 5 votes of the 8 votes were not reached by other those in favor or against, the proposal is officially dismissed.

Please do note that this position is an official statement and should not in anyway be interpreted as our position with regards to the proposal at hand. Thank you.

Trinity Sector Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:13 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Serenarea wrote:
Marscida wrote:Let's not make futule heartstrokes to me, here;

60% on 9 (West Phoenicia has been removed) is 5.4

The act states a quorum on voters, not votes FOR

Therefore,

3 for. 3 abstain. 2 negative. 8/9 on yhe voting base the quorum is reached 88.88%

It states "it shall maintain its voting requirements of sixty six percent concurrence (agreement) of all its voting member states to enforce any executive, legislative, or judicial action," which basically means: sixty six percent of the voters of the proposal must be in favor. For this to pass, 5 out of 8 voters must be in favor. It really wouldn't make sense if the votes against the proposal are used to help it ratify. And if it really was based on the quorum of voters, why vote on it at all if you don't want it to pass?

This is nothing against you or your proposal but the rules of the SC must be enforced.

As the former President of the Security Council, Eurussia concurs. This is the standard and sole formula under the WASC Act. Previously, all SC members are counted in the final tally, but due to time difference and various inactivity, those not voting SC members where removed from the final tally and only those who voted are counted in the final tally.
From there, SC must determine the 66% of the total voting nations, assuming there were 8 nations who participated in the vote, regardless of their votes, therefore, 5 votes is the legal approving vote (rounded off from 5.28 since the '.28' cannot count for a single vote).
Finally, if 5 votes of the 8 votes were in favor, the proposal is officially passed into law. If 5 votes of the 8 votes were against, the proposal is officially rejected. If 5 votes of the 8 votes were not reached by other those in favor or against, the proposal is officially dismissed.
Please do note that this position is an official statement and should not in anyway be interpreted as our position with regards to the proposal at hand. Thank you.

OOC: Alright, clearly, I messed up, I will definitely keep my calculator close at hand for MEU's proposal since its now Day 2 of the voting process.I knew about the percentage of votes to pass or reject such bills and proposals, but since 1.5 month(s) prior from the banning of New Korrea, I came to a conclusion that I wouldn't be chosen as a member of the council, and shockingly VP. So as a bad politician, I did not study the law thoroughly I as was required to do. For me, tallying up the votes whether to be officially passed, rejected, or dismissed was/would be more direct than calculated. I have determined that since 3 nations abstain, they would not be accounted for passing or rejection of the act, which left me to 3 yeas and two nays, thus the passing of the act. The only time within my experience of seeing a proposal dismissed by the method I have used was when a proposal had more voters vote abstain larger than the yeas and nays that was voted. The speaker of the assembly said it was to be dismissed from the floor and that was it.

IC: Since you have returned from the observation deck of this fiasco, truthfully, as one of the authors of The WASC Act, did this proposal pass, rejected, or is it simply dismissed. In my method of tallying, should I recount the votes, used what the act states, I'm still gonna come up with the same answer: it passed.

Marscida Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:27 pm

Trinity_Sector wrote:

OOC: Alright, clearly, I messed up, I will definitely keep my calculator close at hand for MEU's proposal since its now Day 2 of the voting process.I knew about the percentage of votes to pass or reject such bills and proposals, but since 1.5 month(s) prior from the banning of New Korrea, I came to a conclusion that I wouldn't be chosen as a member of the council, and shockingly VP. So as a bad politician, I did not study the law thoroughly I as was required to do. For me, tallying up the votes whether to be officially passed, rejected, or dismissed was/would be more direct than calculated. I have determined that since 3 nations abstain, they would not be accounted for passing or rejection of the act, which left me to 3 yeas and two nays, thus the passing of the act. The only time within my experience of seeing a proposal dismissed by the method I have used was when a proposal had more voters vote abstain larger than the yeas and nays that was voted. The speaker of the assembly said it was to be dismissed from the floor and that was it.

IC: Since you have returned from the observation deck of this fiasco, truthfully, as one of the authors of The WASC Act, did this proposal pass, rejected, or is it simply dismissed. In my method of tallying, should I recount the votes, used what the act states, I'm still gonna come up with the same answer: it passed.

(Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act - Page 2 Maroni-mano-sulla-bocca-1

3 nations voted for.
2 against.
3 abstained.

It was declared debated, voted, and passed.

Then stopped.

Recounted.

And rejected.

STILL

The vice-president of the WASC considers it passed.

Trinity, Vice President wrote:I'm still gonna come up with the same answer: it passed.

Marscida stays with the Vice-President. The act passed.

Trinity Sector Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:44 pm

Eurussia was summoned to the floor to give his opinion about The Act and review the WASC Act to clarify what was wrong. In the end, based on calculation and my methods of tallying, the Act is un-frozen and now effective. Due to our time differences and inactivity, improvements in my judgement will be made after The Freedom of speech act is voted upon. 5 days of debate, 5 days of voting, seems fair without slowing the council progression that we all agreed upon when Wirbanskia was still apart of the region. But to sympathize with people that aren't active as they use to be or cannot connect to the internet as Scouting stated for his condition of why he is not here.

I thank you all for fact-checking this for me. And i bid you a farewell from this legislation.

Serenarea Sun Jun 14, 2015 3:47 am

Where's the president when he's actually needed for issues like these?

Marscida Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 am

Serenarea wrote:Where's the president when he's actually needed for issues like these?

He trust his vice.

And the vice, in it prerogatives declared what is right. Just like a president would do.

Serenarea Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:29 am

Marscida wrote:
Serenarea wrote:Where's the president when he's actually needed for issues like these?

He trust his vice.

And the vice, in it prerogatives declared what is right. Just like a president would do.

Or he's being inactive? And the vice cannot randomly declare what is right and what is not, he must also follow the set rules as the rest of us. I don't know where you got the idea to think that the president and vice president is above the law.

Marscida Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:05 am

Well... i guess that is part of DNA. Really. We Besaràat are quite good in bowing and loving someone just because simething shines on its chest or head...

but what i was meaning is that, being Trinity_Sector vice. APPOINTED by the President (and therefore by faith and not by vote [them plebs often voting bad candidates]) is entitled to be source of faith. A guide in times of unbalance. He enacted the guide and handled the whole voting procedure and when the issue changed to "what's the meaning of that" he again gave its reading key.

Not justifying everything, but i have faith in the vice-President for what he rapresents.

Please, don't misunderstand my behaviours by labelling as 360° forgiviness.

Serenarea Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:57 am

Marscida wrote:Well... i guess that is part of DNA. Really. We Besaràat are quite good in bowing and loving someone just because simething shines on its chest or head...

but what i was meaning is that, being Trinity_Sector vice. APPOINTED by the President (and therefore by faith and not by vote [them plebs often voting bad candidates]) is entitled to be source of faith. A guide in times of unbalance. He enacted the guide and handled the whole voting procedure and when the issue changed to "what's the meaning of that" he again gave its reading key.

Not justifying everything, but i have faith in the vice-President for what he rapresents.

Please, don't misunderstand my behaviours by labelling as 360° forgiviness.

The issue didn't change to "what's the meaning of that." It was a mistake that the vice president made, as he STATED. And the meaning of voting procedures has been clarified by me and even Eurussia, who AUTHORED the entire thing. It's just the vice president decided to ignore the voting procedures that have in effect since before the 11th council and pass your proposal.

Really, its nothing against anything you've proposed here, but if you're gonna hop around laws stated as CLEAR as day, why can't the rest of us?

Marscida Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:25 am

Then file an official accusation of illegality against Trinity Sector that usurps powers not in his belonging snd misguided a stranded soul...

Is what laws are for, isn't it? Punish those who trespass the line.

...but this is unnecessary in this time. We already have problems way bigger than killing eachother on a petty question like that.

It is also unelegant to haunt that bill, even if so meaningful, like that.

I have many ways to obtain that. We also have a party. TWO parties for that. And pland. Marvellous plans.

I say:

-let's drink a tea
-close the heck out of here
-wait for the sleeping beauting to awake and say stuff...

...to bring such chaos... for a nothing. Meh.

Great Eurussia Sun Jun 14, 2015 12:46 pm

Spoiler:

Based on our own evaluation, Eurussia believes this is the outcome of this proposal:

YES - OA, ISIS, Scottlands - 3 votes
NO - TS, Scouting - 2 votes
ABSTAIN - Serenarea, MEU - 2 votes

Spoiler:

Consistent with the above statements, with a total of 7 votes cast among the 10 members of the Security Council, as per the law, the 66% of the seven votes is four. Thus, there must be 4 votes to satisfy that the proposal if either passed or rejected. But since there are only 3 votes in favor, the proposal has not passed and yet since there are also only 2 votes against, the proposal is not even considered totally rejected.

(OOC: If I were the proponent, I would think of it as an opportunity that there is still hope for this kind of proposal to pass if only I could make it more acceptable to those who abstained which I could still persuade to support the proposal in the future.)

Thus, noting that the proposal is neither passed nor rejected, Eurussia believes it is considered dismissed. Please do note that abstentions are also counted as votes and is not omitted. This has been debated before but was overwhelmingly rejected from being removed from the final tally. Anyway, this is no way stops the proponent to resubmit the proposal or revise it all over again. Good luck and thank you.

Trinity Sector Sun Jun 14, 2015 11:24 pm

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t874-a-public-statement-from-trinity-sector

I would like to direct you attention to this so that this thread does not grow any longer than it should with the fate of this act.

Sponsored content

(Dismissed) WA Sovereignty Act