Last WA Proposal / Breech of Democracy

[Todd McCloud]

The last WA resolution was passed by the slimmest margin in NS history. The final voting total is reported as:
Votes For: 2,896
Votes Against: 2,832

Which is a margin of 50.5%, it proved to be an interesting proposal that changed hands between for and against multiple times. However, there is a very big issue regarding this liberation proposal: there was a discrepancy in the voting times. The resolution ended with a reported time frame of eleven hours left, giving voters a sort of false impression that there was time to spare for a vote to be cast and have a great potential to influence the final say. One feeder region (The East Pacific) did not cast their vote, and multiple other userite regions reportedly did not cast their vote to the resolution. Hence, the "true" passing margin should and would have been different, at least in the amount of votes added.

Now, it is somewhat understood by some there is a bug with the current voting time frame. It is not reported on any getting help pages, known bug errors, etc, but is covered sporadically on some technical posts on the forums. Usually, this isn't a big issue: since the reporting of the bug, resolutions on average have passed 60-70%, large enough to delcare a "victory" or "defeat". This last resolution... not so much. It passed with a surplus of seventy votes, while other votes did not go accounted for.

While some may argue it is the duty of the nation to comb the forums to check for bugs that are not reported elsewhere, I beg to differ. We were skating on thin ice with this bug, and finally, the ice broke. In layman's terms, this is a breech of democracy. The voting times were misrepresented, and no effort was made to inform the voters in a more viewable place the error with the voting time frame. Now, I'm not trying to place blame here, nor am I going to go off the deep end and start throwing out conspiracy theories. I'm only here to speak how I see it. And I see it as black and white: the voting times were misrepresented, which affected the voting totals, and quite possibly affected the voting outcome.

This is an issue that must be fixed - the slimmest voting margin in NS history should not be tainted with an asterisk as well, which is how it stands right now. I propose a re-vote. Render the liberation null and void - it is a misrepresentation of the voters, and a breech of democracy. After this current repeal (or some resolution thereafter) has ended, allow this resolution to run for a re-vote, just put back in so people can have their say and the correct voting times can be presented in a fair fashion. I don't care where or how, but at least have something on the WA page that explains there is a bug with the time and it ends less than twelve hours prior to the last update or what not.

Naturally, there will be people against this, but to them I ask: what is more important - a "win" based on a broken system, or the democratic process? Be careful in how one answers that - nothing is ever as important to someone until it is taken away from them. Truly, this is a cry for a re-vote, a chance for a true representation, and a chance for democracy to shine once more in the hallowed halls of the WA. It is a chance to show that this game is able to pass fair judgment and prove time and time again the WA is much better than the... other organization, you know, rhymes with Lunited Fations... It's also a chance to be an altar where democracy is raped for all to see, in the form of greed, anger, resentment, and apathy. I personally would prefer the former.

So please, mods and what not, could we please have a chance to allow democracy in once again?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

- the slimmest voting margin in NS history should not be tainted with an asterisk as well, which is how it stands right now.

It wouldn't have been "the slimmest voting margin in NS history" if you had left your vote in the "For" column. How convenient that TEP's poll was stacked at the last minute, allowing you to withdraw your vote then scream "foul" because of the vote timer....

I propose a re-vote.

Good luck with that. There's never been a re-vote in the history of the game but with the SC I guess anything is possible.

[Unibot]

If we do a recount of this last proposal, we should do a recount for all of the proposals adopted/defeated in the last three months.

[Unibot]

One feeder region (The East Pacific) did not cast their vote, and multiple other userite regions reportedly did not cast their vote to the resolution. Hence, the "true" passing margin should and would have been different, at least in the amount of votes added.

The 'true' passing margin could have involved your region if you had decided to vote on this issue instead of withdrawing your vote to accommodate a voting stack from a pack of raiders in your regional vote which conveniently equated to your own position on the resolution. I had informed you up until the last minute of voting, urging you to vote 'FOR' on IRC --- when I said "there's only half an hour left" that didn't give you a clue to the desperation of the situation? I have a hard time believing any of this. Sorry.

If we did a recount, we would have to put an asterisk beside it if adopted or defeated, as an injustice of democracy.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No to the revote. But this bug really needs to be fixed, already.

[Finavarra]

I just wanted to post my own opinion that I agree if this is to be revoted then all of those resolutions who have suffered from this bug should be revoted on also.

Whilst logistically a revote might be a bit of a pain. I think it is the best option. That said I fully support the resolution which passed, but I feel that things should be done as fairly as possible for the sake of fun.

More importantly, I just want to post my own opinion that I feel this bug should be fixed. I also feel that nothing else should be voted on until the bug is fully fixed.

Fin

[Sedgistan]

Any delegates or individuals who prefer to vote late will have noticed the bug, since its been around for 2 months, and has been mentioned frequently in this & the WA forums. Its not as though the resolution lost 12 hours of voting compared to others, the timer just said it'd have a bit more than it should.

I actually telegrammed Todd midway through voting asking him when he planned to change his vote (because I was aware the poll on his region's forum meant he'd have to), and reminding him that the WA vote timer incorrectly added an extra 12 hours to the voting time remaining.

He conveniently seems to have forgotten that in the midst of complaining. His opposition is not based on a desire for 'democracy' - he just doesn't want to see this resolution on the books.

[Todd McCloud]

Well, the disagreeing parties have replied to this thread. That's fine, but also expected. Let's see if I can answer their claims:

Any delegates or individuals who prefer to vote late will have noticed the bug, since its been around for 2 months, and has been mentioned frequently in this & the WA forums. Its not as though the resolution lost 12 hours of voting compared to others, the timer just said it'd have a bit more than it should.

I actually telegrammed Todd midway through voting asking him when he planned to change his vote (because I was aware the poll on his region's forum meant he'd have to), and reminding him that the WA vote timer incorrectly added an extra 12 hours to the voting time remaining.

He conveniently seems to have forgotten that in the midst of complaining. His opposition is not based on a desire for 'democracy' - he just doesn't want to see this resolution on the books.

You did telegram me - I didn't notice as I've been studying pretty intensely over the past few days. That's fine. But, did you telegram the other delegates that missed out on the voting? What about those who also prematurely voted prior to their region had cast their final votes in the "for" stance? I suppose that's okay, because they're voting "the correct way."

I just wanted to post my own opinion that I agree if this is to be revoted then all of those resolutions who have suffered from this bug should be revoted on also.

Whilst logistically a revote might be a bit of a pain. I think it is the best option. That said I fully support the resolution which passed, but I feel that things should be done as fairly as possible for the sake of fun.

More importantly, I just want to post my own opinion that I feel this bug should be fixed. I also feel that nothing else should be voted on until the bug is fully fixed.

Fin

Totally agree, with most of that. This whole thing could have been prevented if the time would have been presented correctly. As for other resolutions that should be re-voted on, well, take a look at this:

http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=W ... ty_Council
http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_Timeline

If I go back three months from today, and discount the corrupted liberation in question, that would make the "slimmest" margin by 63%, quite a large margin compared to the 50.5% margin we experienced with this one. I personally look at the trends: the off-time would not have swayed at least 13% of the votes in the allotted time and, if it did, there would be an uproar, kind of like what we had here. No one talked, relatively large margin, no problem. After all, 50.5% is only 0.6% away from a "fail" vote.

The 'true' passing margin could have involved your region if you had decided to vote on this issue instead of withdrawing your vote to accommodate a voting stack from a pack of raiders in your regional vote which conveniently equated to your own position on the resolution. I had informed you up until the last minute of voting, urging you to vote 'FOR' on IRC --- when I said "there's only half an hour left" that didn't give you a clue to the desperation of the situation? I have a hard time believing any of this. Sorry.

If we did a recount, we would have to put an asterisk beside it if adopted or defeated, as an injustice of democracy.

That was my decision. I no longer knew what the popular vote was in my region, and I didn't want my own vote (which admittedly would have been in the 'against' stance) to corrupt that of my region. But, that is a problem: those who did vote did so the correct way by becoming citizens and working it through. This goes against me; I should have voted in the against stance. But I did not. And I really wanted to vote against after being both colluded and threatened to vote in the 'for' stance. I am a nation on here, not a piece of meat.

If we do a recount of this last proposal, we should do a recount for all of the proposals adopted/defeated in the last three months.

Answered above.

Good luck with that. There's never been a re-vote in the history of the game but with the SC I guess anything is possible.

I personally like a challenge. And the preservation of democracy is one of those challenges I'll gladly accept, any time of the day.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

That was my decision. I no longer knew what the popular vote was in my region, and I didn't want my own vote (which admittedly would have been in the 'against' stance) to corrupt that of my region. But, that is a problem: those who did vote did so the correct way by becoming citizens and working it through. This goes against me; I should have voted in the against stance. But I did not. And I really wanted to vote against after being both colluded and threatened to vote in the 'for' stance. I am a nation on here, not a piece of meat.

Bullshit Todd. Nobody believes your story about not being able to decide how to vote. You were against this from the outset and even voted early against it while the vote in your region was running 8-2 in favor. The raiders running in and stacking the poll provided a convenient excuse for you to withdraw your vote and then start yammering about the vote timer and throwing around "null and void" and "re-vote". You're making yourself look not only silly here but corrupt as well.

Good luck with that. There's never been a re-vote in the history of the game but with the SC I guess anything is possible.

I personally like a challenge. And the preservation of democracy is one of those challenges I'll gladly accept, any time of the day.

Again, bullshit. Your efforts have nothing at all to do with preserving democracy and you and I and everyone else knows it. But knock yourself out trying to get that re-vote. If you succeed it'll just give me something else to point and laugh at.

[Burchadinger]

First of all, when I voted, there was 12 hours left on the timer, which was probably 1 hour left. I Voted Against, and the margin started to close in, and my region was prepared to put all their Votes Against. Many of them however, were not available within the time period, and therefore, 10 Votes were not casted. This is certainly annoying, and the bug should really be fixed.

[Martyrdoom]

I actually telegrammed Todd midway through voting asking him when he planned to change his vote (because I was aware the poll on his region's forum meant he'd have to), and reminding him that the WA vote timer incorrectly added an extra 12 hours to the voting time remaining.

He conveniently seems to have forgotten that in the midst of complaining. His opposition is not based on a desire for 'democracy' - he just doesn't want to see this resolution on the books.

That's the second time I've seen such talk. Even if Todd knew the timer was off, how does that inform those unknowing delegates? I don't get it.

I have to agree with Todd's sentiments on this - it calls into the question the resolution's democratic validity. Even if those votes which weren't cast subsequently turned out to be 'FOR', that'd be all the better in my opinion.

[Sedgistan]

I actually telegrammed Todd midway through voting asking him when he planned to change his vote (because I was aware the poll on his region's forum meant he'd have to), and reminding him that the WA vote timer incorrectly added an extra 12 hours to the voting time remaining.

He conveniently seems to have forgotten that in the midst of complaining. His opposition is not based on a desire for 'democracy' - he just doesn't want to see this resolution on the books.

That's the second time I've seen such talk. Even if Todd knew the timer was off, how does that inform those unknowing delegates? I don't get it.

The intention there was more to see if he was aware of the bug midway through the vote, and yet failed to complain about this 'breech of democracy' until the resolution passed. Since he claims not to have read it at the time, its not applicable.

Even so, its already been pointed out here & in the thread about the resolution in question, that NS has had other problems - such as the delegate votes being lost for "Food Welfare Act", and the site being down near the end of voting on some resolutions - yet none of those votes have been declared 'null and void' and voted upon again.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Todd, if you don't like the proposal, write a repeal like everyone else. You seem to have formed a coherent argument against its so-called "breech of democracy", just put it into clauses.

[Kalibarr]

Any delegates or individuals who prefer to vote late will have noticed the bug, since its been around for 2 months, and has been mentioned frequently in this & the WA forums. Its not as though the resolution lost 12 hours of voting compared to others, the timer just said it'd have a bit more than it should.

I actually telegrammed Todd midway through voting asking him when he planned to change his vote (because I was aware the poll on his region's forum meant he'd have to), and reminding him that the WA vote timer incorrectly added an extra 12 hours to the voting time remaining.

He conveniently seems to have forgotten that in the midst of complaining. His opposition is not based on a desire for 'democracy' - he just doesn't want to see this resolution on the books.

one could say that your being un-concerned about this is because of your support of the resolution.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Any delegates or individuals who prefer to vote late will have noticed the bug, since its been around for 2 months, and has been mentioned frequently in this & the WA forums. Its not as though the resolution lost 12 hours of voting compared to others, the timer just said it'd have a bit more than it should.

I actually telegrammed Todd midway through voting asking him when he planned to change his vote (because I was aware the poll on his region's forum meant he'd have to), and reminding him that the WA vote timer incorrectly added an extra 12 hours to the voting time remaining.

He conveniently seems to have forgotten that in the midst of complaining. His opposition is not based on a desire for 'democracy' - he just doesn't want to see this resolution on the books.

one could say that your being un-concerned about this is because of your support of the resolution.

One could say that your concern for this situation comes from your involvement in the continued suppression of Free Thought.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Todd, if you don't like the proposal, write a repeal like everyone else. You seem to have formed a coherent argument against its so-called "breech of democracy", just put it into clauses.

Ugh. You guys are totally not seeing the forest through the trees. This post isn't about his opposition of the resolution, so stop going on and on about it. This post is about how the vote timer bug has consistently led to delegates and regular WA members to believe they had more time to vote, and then come back and see that the vote ended earlier than the timer said it would. They didn't get to vote. That's the issue, here; not whether or not Todd has ulterior motives. Who gives a flying fluck if he does?

Because I did not drudge through the cacophony of topics on the bug, I did not know how off the timer was, or even if the bug still existed. Therefore, I thought I had more time to vote on "Medical Blockade Restriction". I come back, go to the WA page, and lo-and-behold, the voting is over earlier than I was told it would be. Because that bug isn't fixed yet, my region didn't get a vote, and neither did I.

Anyways, like I said in my first post, I don't think we should have a revote. If we were going to revote on resolutions that had problems with bugs, we would have to have a revote on every single resolution -- GA or SC -- since my Food Welfare Act. That's a lot of resolutions and it's frankly a waste of time, because, like others have pointed out, the margins of 90% of those resolution weren't close at all.

[Sedgistan]

*snip*

Everyone here wants the WA vote timer fixed, the main discussion is actually on whether there should be a re-vote.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

*snip*

Everyone here wants the WA vote timer fixed, the main discussion is actually on whether there should be a re-vote.

Agreed. We all want the timer fixed. We've wanted it fixed for some time now.

[Glen-Rhodes]

*snip*

Everyone here wants the WA vote timer fixed, the main discussion is actually on whether there should be a re-vote.

Todd's post proposes a re-vote, based on the fact that numerous delegates and regular members are disenfranchised by the vote timer bug. The re-vote is a 'fix', but the jist of it all is that the bug is annoying and should have been fixed a long time ago.

Even still, a lot more than half of the posts in this thread are about calling out Todd and general dickery. Why don't we just stick to the topic, please? Complaining about the bug and discussing if we should have a re-vote. Questioning Todd's motives does nothing but display how much we all can't get along.

[Unibot]

*snip*

Everyone here wants the WA vote timer fixed, the main discussion is actually on whether there should be a re-vote.

Todd's post proposes a re-vote, based on the fact that numerous delegates and regular members are disenfranchised by the vote timer bug. The re-vote is a 'fix', but the jist of it all is that the bug is annoying and should have been fixed a long time ago.

Even still, a lot more than half of the posts in this thread are about calling out Todd and general dickery. Why don't we just stick to the topic, please? Complaining about the bug and discussing if we should have a re-vote. Questioning Todd's motives does nothing but display how much we all can't get along.

Couldn't one do a recount through a repeal? I mean, why do we even have repeals!? Why not? Everytime a proposal is adopted by the WA, by a narrow amount, and a feeder doesn't get to vote on it -- let's just do it again! Yah! Throw the proposal out, ignore democracy, those procrastinating feeders want a re-count!

This is like asking for a fourth round of rock, paper and scissors -- having been beaten three times in a row.

Considering that there is no drastic changes in voting numbers, or delegate participation -- than how can we argue that there was an effect with this resolution, and not every other resolution passed in the last three months?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Couldn't one do a recount through a repeal? I mean, why do we even have repeals!? Why not? Everytime a proposal is adopted by the WA, by a narrow amount, and a feeder doesn't get to vote on it -- let's just do it again! Yah! Throw the proposal out, ignore democracy, those procrastinating feeders want a re-count!

This is like asking for a fourth round of rock, paper and scissors -- having been beaten three times in a row.

Yes, a re-vote* could be done through a repeal, but that's assuming there's something about the passed resolution that is worthy of a repeal. You can't just submit a repeal saying, "We're going to have a re-vote on this." A repeal is for repealing, not for putting things up for vote twice.

Playing the devil's advocate, the process isn't very 'democratic' with the bug still in place. It's akin to telling everybody the polls close at midnight, but they actually close at noon. Actually, it's exactly that, the only difference being that the bug isn't intentional. Clearly, some nations and delegates were essentially shorted out of a vote, because the bug has not been fixed nor has it been widely publicized, so that people know that there's a bug and know when the vote should actually end. So, asking for a re-vote is less like asking for a fourth round of rock-paper-scissors after being beaten three times, as you describe it, and more like asking for a chance to actually vote.

Considering that there is no drastic changes in voting numbers, or delegate participation -- than how can we argue that there was an effect with this resolution, and not every other resolution passed in the last three months?

Something about a 0.5 percentage-point margin seems strange to me. The General Assembly's lowest margin is 3 percentage-points. The Security Council's, excepting Liberate Free Thought, is 6. I'm not sure about the level of controversy over Liberate Free Thought, but repealing Commend 10000 Islands was controversial, and it had the 6 percentage-point margin I just mentioned. I think the obvious conclusion is that something happened, and it wasn't just the democratic process at its worst. How many feeders didn't get to vote, who were planning on voting? How many nations? I think, based on those numbers, maybe a re-vote is worth mulling over.

However, I can't really judge without knowing; my knee-jerk reaction is to say no, because there were so many resolutions affected by the vote timer bug, not to mention the bug that heavily affected Food Welfare Act (in fact, if any resolution deserves a re-vote, it would be that, but I wouldn't want to risk it failing). The only thing that makes Liberate Free Thought exceptional is the extremely slim voting margin. With only 65 votes minimally needed to be defeated, the vote timer bug may have actually played a major part. 65 votes would be equal to only six delegates of small-sized regions, like me and my region. That's six people that could have swung it and defeated it. When it's put in those numbers, I don't see how you can't think that maybe something was up.

[Sedgistan]

The margin was low because the invaders lobbied delegates for once. As already stated, anyone who prefers to vote late will have noticed the bug by now, since its been around for 2 months. We haven't seen any drop in the total numbers of votes cast since the bug appeared - I really think its affect has been minimal.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

Considering that there is no drastic changes in voting numbers, or delegate participation -- than how can we argue that there was an effect with this resolution, and not every other resolution passed in the last three months?

Something about a 0.5 percentage-point margin seems strange to me. The General Assembly's lowest margin is 3 percentage-points. The Security Council's, excepting Liberate Free Thought, is 6. I'm not sure about the level of controversy over Liberate Free Thought, but repealing Commend 10000 Islands was controversial, and it had the 6 percentage-point margin I just mentioned. I think the obvious conclusion is that something happened, and it wasn't just the democratic process at its worst. How many feeders didn't get to vote, who were planning on voting? How many nations? I think, based on those numbers, maybe a re-vote is worth mulling over.

However, I can't really judge without knowing; my knee-jerk reaction is to say no, because there were so many resolutions affected by the vote timer bug, not to mention the bug that heavily affected Food Welfare Act (in fact, if any resolution deserves a re-vote, it would be that, but I wouldn't want to risk it failing). The only thing that makes Liberate Free Thought exceptional is the extremely slim voting margin. With only 65 votes minimally needed to be defeated, the vote timer bug may have actually played a major part.

Many things could have played a major part, it was voted on a Friday night, there, let's go do a revote on a Monday! Liberate Utopia had less of a delegate turnout than Liberate Free Thought, so why don't we start with the recount there.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The margin was low because the invaders lobbied delegates for once. As already stated, anyone who prefers to vote late will have noticed the bug by now, since its been around for 2 months. We haven't seen any drop in the total numbers of votes cast since the bug appeared - I really think its affect has been minimal.

You assume too much. I vote late, because I vote the way my region's forum poll turns out. I could not vote on Medical Blockade Restriction, because I was unaware of what time the votes actually end, and even if the bug still existed. I'm not going to drudge through tech posts to find out, either, because that's an unnecessary inconvenience. You don't get to say that it's our fault for not showing up half a day early. We didn't know that we needed to.

And that 'minimal' effect you're mentioning? You think around 65 votes affected by the bug is a 'minimal' enough number?

Many things could have played a major part, it was voted on a Friday night, there, let's go do a revote on a Monday! Liberate Utopia had less of a delegate turnout than Liberate Free Thought, so why don't we start with the recount there.

The crux of the argument is in the vote margin. Liberate Utopia passed with a supermajority. The lowest margin of any SC resolution is 6 points. With a pattern of relatively wide margins, you can't just write-off that the bug might have had something to do it.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Oh no. Glen-Rhodes don't tell me you're jumping on the re-vote bandwagon too?

*sigh*

Well, I know how to put a stop to that. I DEMAND A RE-VOTE!