Change Bylaw : Administration Section 3.a.v
Status message
Displaying output for plurality votingOpen Votes
Proposal Type: Bylaw Revision
Opened: 15-Feb-2006 1:00AM EST
Closing: 17-Feb-2006 1:00AM EST
After re-reading the relevant bylaws, I believe this should go in section 3.a.v. Sorry about that.
Further, to be consistent with the wording of 3.a.i.1, this should read:
A voting member may not submit a second bylaw proposal until the first proposal that member submitted either passes or fails vote, is formally withdrawn, or fails due to a lack of a second.
File / Document: No file attachments for this vote.
Ballot Options Against
For
Abstain
1 out of 160 eligible voters cast their ballot
Against
56% (28 votes)
For
36% (18 votes)
Abstain
8% (4 votes)
| Chronicle/Position | Voted for | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| St. Petersburg, FL - USA, Faces of Change | Against | The dangers of being a Council Rep is a full inbox. |
| Saint Paul, MN - USA, Obsidian Towers | Against | |
| Iowa City, IA - USA, Fields of Rage | For | |
| Tampa, FL - USA, Tampa Bay by Night | Against | Yes, the system can seem flawed at times, however, the ability to submit votes is every council member's right. We, the staff of Tampa, urge you to practice personal responsibility when submitting bylaw changes. Please understand the ability to vote is what separates us from the Camarilla. Please do not let the few lose this right for the majority. |
| Fredericksburg, VA - USA, Caine's Chosen: Liberty in Death | For | I approve completely. perhaps certain council reps will no longer submit 5 or 6 in as many weeks. |
| Winona, MN - USA, Winona Dark Haven | Against | As much as I hate to admit it, I do not feel that members should be restricted as such. I can imagine circumstances that may be aided by multiple props at once, and this has the potential to slow down the already cumbersome process. |
| Auburn, CA - USA, Lux Tenebras | Abstain | Checking with the wording, this should not affect Coordinator proposals, as they are not voting members. Otherwise I would have concern, as the Archivist proposes multiple R&Us for Chronicles, and Coords sometimes propose multiple characters and/or plots to accompany them at once. On the other hand, we do not deem it necessary, so will go with whatever everyone else feels. |
| Providence, RI - USA, Hidden Flame | Against | |
| Atlanta, GA - USA, Whispers of Atlanta | Against | Echo Chaos |
| Fargo, ND - USA, Within Shadow's Reach | For | See Reclamation & Capital rage. I agree wholeheartedly. When 5 bylaw props cross your inbox all by the same person, it gets more difficult to discuss everything as it should be. |
| Cleveland, OH - USA, Carpe Noctum | Against | |
| Macon, GA - USA, Stolen Hours | For | See what Reclamation Philadelphia said. |
| Cincinnati, OH - USA, Shadows of Cincinnati | For | |
| Washington, DC - USA, Shadows on the Mall | Against | As well-intended as we're sure this prop is, we have to temper our decision with the knowledge that the road to Hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions. I have visions of ways this prop can be abused in the future, and of massive SNAFUs that could be caused by limiting each CM to one single active prop at a time. We're all adults here, right? A little judicious usage of our proposal system isn't too much to ask for. |
| Phoenix, AZ - USA, Secundus Surrectum | Against | |
| Harrisonburg, VA: Death in the Valley | For | 1> My props aren't bylaw props. They are just R&U votes.=-) In fact, NONE of the things done by Coords are bylaw props, really, save potential rarity changes, and those get muddy between ''genre props'' and ''Bylaw props'' 2> This is a way to stop shotgunning. I know the drill...pick something you REALLY want to pass. Get your friend to be willing to second it. Get someone on council to comment / bring up the oldies by goodies / start a ''discussion,'' sneak your props in..and BAM. Yes, we still vote, but.... 3> This prop gives support to change, really. By slowing the bylaw props (and there is nothing stopping one person from going to another), we'll avoid the weeks of 10 bylaw props...who HONESTLY has the time to devote real discourse on 5-10 bylaw props in one week? A few people..but not the majority. |
| Gimli, MB - Canada, Sang Nordique | Against | |
| Iowa City, IA - USA, L'Ange Noir | For | |
| St. Augustine, FL - USA, On Haunted Ground | Abstain | Sometimes things are propped to do some great 'good', some are propped merely to send a message. I'm going to assume this is the latter, and pray that it is. Should this have any sort of chance of winning, expect our vote to change to against. |
| Annapolis, MD - USA, Vitae Aeternus | Against | |
| Edwardsville, IL - USA, Caught in Eternal Twilight | Against | There are certain times when certain bylaw fixes will require more than one bylaw change to fix any discrepancies / loopholes. This prop seems more like a reactionary prop that is only being done as an attempt to get back at someone else. That gives even more reason to vote against this. As far as all of the ''Well Cap Rage summed it up for me!'''s ..... Why should Coords and games propping R&U characters be the only props allowed in as ''more than one per CM''? |
| Baltimore, MD - USA, Dark Harbor | Against | |
| AHC 1 | For | Capital Rage summed it up best for me. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I don't think the problem lies in, or can be fixed by, a Bylaw change, including this one. I think we've seen what can happen if one CM submits many proposals at the same time. However, what if all of them had been popular and passed? Then this would look even sillier than it does now. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I don't think the problem lies in, or can be fixed by, a Bylaw change, including this one. I think we've seen what can happen if one CM submits many proposals at the same time. However, what if all of them had been popular and passed? Then this would look even sillier than it does now. |
| Reclamation | For | This specifically does not cover multiple R&U submissions or genre proposals, only changes to the bylaws. Changes to the bylaws should be taken seriously, and given full attention. |