Guild of Writers

Probably not important, but I did vote 'abstain' on the vote for myself... it seemed like the modest thing to do...

Shows humility. Not bad.

I had voted 'abstained' for candidates that, while qualified, were not my first choice for the position. Next time around, I would prefer a nomination period for council candidates.

I do understand that there was many who wished for a fully democratic system, and I agree that one would be ideal to have (being American). I also feel that what we have done here is not the permanent solution, and that with a council in place, we will be able to form a much better way to handle running the council.

So, basically I am saying hang on to all your ideas, and get ready to write up proposals. Good governments do not come into power within a day, and since this is not even close to a government, it should be easy for us to organize, but it will still be an ongoing process.

Sorry, I would have voted but you held the poll at the wrong time for me. I've been a bit buisy lately with xmas and all.

For the record I would have voted yes for the system and abstained for the candidates, mainly because I don't know enough to make an informed descision.

I also think bluewyvern's quorum idea is a good one. It sounds like a more transparent number.

BAD wrote:It seems that (if we go by the voting system set up in the proposal) the proposal itself has been passed. However, the actual proposed Guild councilors we have proposed have failed to reach a minimum vote turnout of 33.

So, by the accepted proposal, this will leave the decision of guild councilors to, Trylon, Pryftan, and myself.

It turns out that your numbers are wrong - the minimum vote count is actually 28 votes, and that count is reached on all councilors.

You probably took the number of people with one post or more, which totals 167.
Quite a number of those are from people who posted on old boards that were imported onto this one.
If you subtract the people that never logged in, you get a total of 138 people.

20% of 138 is 27.6 - aka 28 votes.

Aha! I did not think of that. I still agree with BW's way as it would provide a more fluid counting system.