Something has come up in the Isle of Man relating to the 30 day waiting period of a Law revision. This may or may not be a bug but I would like to draw attention to this matter to better understand if this mechanism as currently implemented is working as intended.

In mid-February, when IoM was still at full strength, in order to compensate for fluctuating financial conditions a revision to the Royal Stipends was passed. Shortly thereafter an alternate strategy was pursued that resulted in a mass exodus from the IoM into the newly emerging St. Kitts-Nevis. The monies left in the Treasury were no longer able to sustain these stipends for those remaining. An attempt to make an adjustment to the amounts was unsuccessful due to the requirement for passage was based on the number of votes cast in the previous election. In fact, that minimum number of 173 votes required exceeded the number of votes available by 50% & it did not succeed.

After waiting 32 days since the last revised date for Royal Stipends another proposal was submitted only to find that the 30 day period is enforced from the date of the last voting on the issue & not the actual last revision. So 173 votes are still required for passage regardless of the fact that only 41 votes are now possible with even fewer members still remaining.

The voting period is still open but the outcome is predetermined. I am asking that the excessive votes mandated by the 30 day provision be set aside so that this election can come to a reasonable result. Without any such action, this perpetual rolling 30 day calendar will extend again forward, further exacerbating the situation.

In short, the fix for this bug is to base the votes required on the votes available not on those cast in the prior election.

I don't even think it should be a requirement.

Every revision should be solely based on the outcome of the new vote, yay or nay, the previous revisions vote count should not even be a factor.. IMHO

Charles Vane wrote:I don't even think it should be a requirement.

Every revision should be solely based on the outcome of the new vote, yay or nay, the previous revisions vote count should not even be a factor.. IMHO

This.

It isn't a bug, we ran into that "issue" in the USA. A revision that occurs within 30 days of the last revision vote start date must have more Yes votes than the last revisions Yes votes. The amount of players and voting power available during the two votes are non-comparable. So if the last vote received 150 Yes votes, for you to pass a revision within 30 days it must receive 151 Yes votes. After the 30 day point, it is only a simple majority of more yes than no.

Well even if it isn't technically a bug, I do not think it makes much sense that Isle of Man can not revise a law due to lacking the votes they use to have. I think Vane has the right idea, since situations like this, in my opinion should not happen.

Meliva wrote:Well even if it isn't technically a bug, I do not think it makes much sense that Isle of Man can not revise a law due to lacking the votes they use to have. I think Vane has the right idea, since situations like this, in my opinion should not happen.

No one expects this, but the USA had the same problem after the TLT/Danik takeover. We came to a simple solution, which is how law votes for all nation should be done. If you aren't doing it this way you are setting yourself up for failure in regards to revisions.

This assumes that the nation's council discussed and agreed on a law change before an actually vote is submitted.

Create a voting order (Duke through King/Queen).
The first member in the voting order (Duke) does not vote unless the No Votes exceed the Yes votes or if no votes occurred by the last day of voting.
The next council member does not vote unless the No Votes starts to exceed the Yes votes.
The remaining council members continue the process and only vote if the No votes start to exceed the Yes.
This allows the vote to pass with the minimum amount of Council Votes. If a revision needs to occur within 30 days, you repeat the process except just before the vote expires, you use the remaining council members as needed to push it past the previous vote counts.

IIRC, the USA passed a law revision with less than 30 total Yes votes with no council member voting, even though the council itself had close to 80 voting power by itself.

DezNutz wrote:

Meliva wrote:Well even if it isn't technically a bug, I do not think it makes much sense that Isle of Man can not revise a law due to lacking the votes they use to have. I think Vane has the right idea, since situations like this, in my opinion should not happen.

No one expects this, but the USA had the same problem after the TLT/Danik takeover. We came to a simple solution, which is how law votes for all nation should be done. If you aren't doing it this way you are setting yourself up for failure in regards to revisions.

This assumes that the nation's council discussed and agreed on a law change before an actually vote is submitted.

Create a voting order (Duke through King/Queen).
The first member in the voting order (Duke) does not vote unless the No Votes exceed the Yes votes or if no votes occurred by the last day of voting.
The next council member does not vote unless the No Votes starts to exceed the Yes votes.
The remaining council members continue the process and only vote if the No votes start to exceed the Yes.
This allows the vote to pass with the minimum amount of Council Votes. If a revision needs to occur within 30 days, you repeat the process except just before the vote expires, you use the remaining council members as needed to push it past the previous vote counts.

IIRC, the USA passed a law revision with less than 30 total Yes votes with no council member voting, even though the council itself had close to 80 voting power by itself.

While that is a clever solution, I believe it would be much simpler, and more efficient if how revisions work is changed. I did not even realize this was a problem until Jeanne pointed it out, and Since you admitted the US had a similar experience, it seems like this is something not a lot of people realized could happen.

Let me emphasize that the last "Revision" took place 32 days ago. However due to an intervening vote on this issue which "Failed" the 30 period is "indexed" to that secondary referendum without displaying the appropriate date, so even now a simple majority will not succeed & another 30-day clock will proceed anew.

This is clearly "Beyond" the original intention this measure was set-up to police.

There are currently 40 of 41 available votes in the affirmative without any chance of passage without Admin interaction.

"Day 1623 Isle of Man has revised the law Royal Stipends". so its already pass more than 30 days. But failed revise attempt in 30 days probably extend the duration again.

Only successful revisions matter.
Voting start time matters for the limit.

You can't use the voting end time for the limit for two reasons:
-We want the ability to have different timeframes for different laws.
-We want the ability to end votes prematurely based on existing majority [Pending Implementation]

The limit of 30 days might be inconvenient at the current way of usage but it serves purposes and helps strategy.