[Vote]Punishment for Schuyler Colfax

[Bounty]

Voted.

[RedImperator]

Veoted

[Simplicius]

Done.

[Mad]

Abstain. Haven't seen much of him in the threads I've frequented lately.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Voted.

[Kuja]

Yeah.

[fgalkin]

Abstain.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[LadyTevar]

Blah

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since it's now mathematically impossible for Schuyler Colfax to receive anything other than a temp ban, I move that we create a thread to discuss the length options for the temp ban, with the proposal that they be 4-months, 6-months, and 12-months, with whichever that gets a plurality becoming his punishment.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Till, labour day?

[Knife]

Since it's now mathematically impossible for Schuyler Colfax to receive anything other than a temp ban, I move that we create a thread to discuss the length options for the temp ban, with the proposal that they be 4-months, 6-months, and 12-months, with whichever that gets a plurality becoming his punishment.

Considering a Perm Ban (with lesser being acceptable) is winning, I would point out a new set of polls without a perm ban option would be...insulting.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I swear some of us are so bloodthirsty about banning that they belong in the great terror right next to rospierre.

---edit---

for those who don't know whom I'm refering too. Robespierre

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ahh, there are 14 first-preference votes for a permban and 16 first-preference votes for a tempban, with 11 second-preference votes for a tempban leading to 27 votes in favour of a temp ban, which is half the Senate, so you're wrong.

If you want to get technical there are 3 first-preference, 7 second-preference, and 11 third-preference votes for a titling, but third-preference votes would only be applied if the second preference doesn't pass. However, it is now a mathematical impossibility for the 11 first-preference permban, second-preference tempban votes to be applied to a permban, because the permban cannot achieve enough votes in any remaining mathematical circumstance to pass, meaning that the second-preference of those eleven votes should be applied to a tempban.

Granted, there's a few other ways of looking at this depending on what sort of variation of Single Transferable Vote that Greg is using, but they all lead to a temp ban.

[CmdrWilkens]

Since it's now mathematically impossible for Schuyler Colfax to receive anything other than a temp ban, I move that we create a thread to discuss the length options for the temp ban, with the proposal that they be 4-months, 6-months, and 12-months, with whichever that gets a plurality becoming his punishment.

Considering a Perm Ban (with lesser being acceptable) is winning, I would point out a new set of polls without a perm ban option would be...insulting.

Here is hwo things stand with one day to go:

PermaBan 14 votes (counting PermaBan and PermaBan+Lesser) out of 36 non-abstentions
TempBan 27 votes (counting PermaBan+Lesser, TempBan Only, and TempBan+Lesser) out of 36 non-abstentions
Title 21 votes (counting PermaBan+Lesser, TempBan+Lesser, and Title) out of 36 non-abstentions
Table/None 3 Votes
Abstain 6 votes

As currently constructed (and as I indicated in the initial post) the measure which would pass is TempBan given that:
a) PermaBan does NOT have the 60% supermajority neccessarry for passage
b) TempBan does have the simple majority neccessarry for passage
c) TempBan carries before lesser preferences are applied to chosing a title


Again I will quote from my OP:

Per the rules a PermaBan requires a supermajority of all voters and a 50% quorum, for purposes of calculating this votes for both A and B will be considered PermaBan votes. If PermaBan does not pass the next evaluation will be for TempBan which requires a majoirty vote and 40% quorum, for purposes of calculating this will include all votes in options B, C, and D. If TempBan fails the next evaluation is Title which will be counted from options B, D, and E and must pass by majority vote and 40% quorum. If none of the option (PermaBan, TempBan, Title) pass then we will table the issue until and if Colfax violates the terms of his self propsoed parole.

[Knife]

You both are assuming quite a bit in the vague definitions given to vote upon. How ever, I shall reiterate my point, with all the basic categories in the vote; Permban (lesser offenses would be acceptable) is WINNING. Not having a category in a more defining vote that represents the PERM BAN in the PERM BAN (lesser offenses would be acceptable) would make this current vote an abortion and a disgrace.

Trying to go about it in a statistical manner when each category bleeds into the other is giving you both assumptions that are not warranted especially since the drama had move forward durring the voting period. You can not and should not eliminate a category for a more defined vote based off of a vague category vote that IS WINNING in the vote. I don't care if you tally up all the 'less punishments' categories end up beating the 'larger punishment' categories. IN THE VOTE PERM BAN (lesser offenses would be acceptable) is winning and not having PERM BAN as an option in the next tier of votes in NOT ACCEPTABLE whether or not it wins in that vote is another matter.

Edit: To further pontificate, who cares if you think it has a statistical chance of passage in the next tier of votes. That is not what matters in my objection, rather the Chancillorship limiting voting options due to assumed voting statistics. Put it in and if no one votes for it, no one votes for it.

[CmdrWilkens]

You both are assuming quite a bit in the vague definitions given to vote upon. How ever, I shall reiterate my point, with all the basic categories in the vote; Permban (lesser offenses would be acceptable) is WINNING. Not having a category in a more defining vote that represents the PERM BAN in the PERM BAN (lesser offenses would be acceptable) would make this current vote an abortion and a disgrace.

Trying to go about it in a statistical manner when each category bleeds into the other is giving you both assumptions that are not warranted especially since the drama had move forward durring the voting period. You can not and should not eliminate a category for a more defined vote based off of a vague category vote that IS WINNING in the vote. I don't care if you tally up all the 'less punishments' categories end up beating the 'larger punishment' categories. IN THE VOTE PERM BAN (lesser offenses would be acceptable) is winning and not having PERM BAN as an option in the next tier of votes in NOT ACCEPTABLE whether or not it wins in that vote is another matter.

Edit: To further pontificate, who cares if you think it has a statistical chance of passage in the next tier of votes. That is not what matters in my objection, rather the Chancillorship limiting voting options due to assumed voting statistics. Put it in and if no one votes for it, no one votes for it.

Allright let me lay some things out here:

The following options are available in sum:
If the possibilities are as such:
A Perma Ban
B Temp Ban
C Title

Then the following preferences are possible:

A, none, none
A, B, none
A, C, none
A, B, C
A, C, B
B, none, none
B, C, none
B, A, none
B, C, A
B, A, C
C, none, none
C, B, none
C, A, none
C, B, A
C, A, B
none, none, none

That is more total options than the board software allows for so what I did was state, very clearly I thought, what options or combinations thereof we would be voting upon. As such the available options are:

- A, none, none
- A, B, C
- B, none, none
- B, C, none
- C, none, none
- none, none, none

Now one could point out that the chance certianly exists for folks to have preference for a heavier punishment secondary to a lighter punishment and I did not include that chance I feel this is a relatively solid model. It is, essentially, a Single Transferrable Vote. One votes for either an Option with no transfer (A,none,none; B,none, none; C none, none) or they vote with their option transferrable to the "lower" tiers of punishment.

You might upbarid the decision but I would challenge that given the constraints of the voting software which does not allow for more than 10 options (and none, none, none along with Abstain MUST be included) this represents the best possible compromise.

As to the idea that Perma Ban (lesser is acceptable) "winning" that may be true but Perma Ban requires a 60% supermajority. Of the 36 non-abstentions cast so far this would require 22 votes in favor...so PermaBan is not "winning." It may be the leading contender but it is not "winning" in the sense that it currently lacks sufficient support to pass. Given that I stated in the OP that if PermaBan doesn't pass then votes for PermaBan plus lesser would transfer to TempBan I find it ironic that anyone could have been deceived or misled as to how I will determine the final outcome.

[Mr Bean]

I have a far more simple model CmdrWilkens

We have at present 11 votes for Permaban(Less punishments acceptable), 9 votes for temp ban only and 7 votes for temp ban or lesser. At present it puts us 27 votes for a Temp-ban as both the 9 votes for temp ban only and temp bans or less count towards the ban limit.

At 27 votes of 42 votes the Temp ban is currently passing with 64% of the total votes.

[CmdrWilkens]

I have a far more simple model CmdrWilkens

We have at present 11 votes for Permaban(Less punishments acceptable), 9 votes for temp ban only and 7 votes for temp ban or lesser. At present it puts us 27 votes for a Temp-ban as both the 9 votes for temp ban only and temp bans or less count towards the ban limit.

At 27 votes of 42 votes the Temp ban is currently passing with 64% of the total votes.

Which is exactly what I said here

Here is hwo things stand with one day to go:

PermaBan 14 votes (counting PermaBan and PermaBan+Lesser) out of 36 non-abstentions
TempBan 27 votes (counting PermaBan+Lesser, TempBan Only, and TempBan+Lesser) out of 36 non-abstentions
Title 21 votes (counting PermaBan+Lesser, TempBan+Lesser, and Title) out of 36 non-abstentions
Table/None 3 Votes
Abstain 6 votes

As currently constructed (and as I indicated in the initial post) the measure which would pass is TempBan given that:
a) PermaBan does NOT have the 60% supermajority neccessarry for passage
b) TempBan does have the simple majority neccessarry for passage
c) TempBan carries before lesser preferences are applied to chosing a title

and here

Taking the current vote totals there are:

14 for PermaBan
25 for TempBan (counting PermaBan+ Lesser, TempBan Only, and TempBan + Lesser)
20 for Title (counting PermBan+Lesser, TempBan+Lesser and Title Only)
2 No Punishments
6 Abstains

Currently TempBan is the leading preference with length To Be Determined.

Near as I can tell Knife's objection is that there is no clear dileneation as to preference within the PermaBan+Lesser and TempBan+Lesser categories. That is, and my post was pointing out that there aren't all that many ways to do it better, those two categories are not as fully defined in terms of where the Instant Runoff Vote ends up. While I get the objection my point in posting above, and here, is to clarify that the rules for how this vote will be conducted have been made as abundantly clear as I can make them. No one prior to this point had raised any objections (well I did get into a technical discussion via PM but I'm saving that for Tuesday).

Clarifying a bit more the system I am using here is a modified instant runoff whereby voters are indicating a first, second and third preference (Perma/None/None ; Perma/Temp/Title ; Temp/None/None ; Temp/Title/None ; Title/None/None ; None/None/None). Obviously this does not include all possible results (Perma/Title/Temp, Perma/Temp/None and Perma/Title/None being the most obvious) and most notably there is no allowance for a "harsher" punishment as a second or third preference. Anyway when the tally begins first preferenes are:

14 Perma
17 Temp
2 Title
6 None
No option meets the majority requirements (22 for Perma, 19 for Temp or Title) so Title is eliminated and we recount:

14 Perma
17 Temp
8 None (6 None First Preferences and 2 None Second Preferences)

Again, no options meets the majority requirements (22 for Perma, 19 for Temp) so "None" is eliminated and we recount:

14 Perma
17 Temp

Again no option meets the majority requirements and Perma is eliminated and we recount:

28 Temp (17 first preference and 11 second preference)

Temp now carries a majority for victory. That would be under a pure IRV and the modified version as I stated in the OP has Perma-Ban eliminated if it does not pass on the first "ballot." Since the secondary preferences are, and here I could understand some criticism, only for lesser punishments it is not possible for permaBan to gain any ground in future rounds. If secondary preference did not pass TempBan then tertiary preference would be given to Title (again I did this because of the descending punishment options) and if tertiary was insufficient then a majority would not have been attained and the measure would fail. As a matter of course this would require that PermaOnly+TempOnly+None to hold an outright majority which it does not (in other words None as a primary or secondary preference would have to hold a majority stake).

Its not perfect as I admit above but I think some technical arguments aside, and I'm getting into that on Tuesday, its a valid and fair preferrential voting system.

[RedImperator]

I wonder if it's possible to mod the software to allow preferential voting.

[CmdrWilkens]

I wonder if it's possible to mod the software to allow preferential voting.

Maybe and the answer comes with a bit mroe explanation on Tuesday...I promise. Its just I've been having a highly technial discussion on the issue and right now there is some work being done to see if it can be added to the code. That aside I'm going to bring up a summarized and clarified version of the discussions I've been having once this vote closes. The reason is I don't want to get any deeper into mecahnics (I've really violated my own rule a bit in this thread) until we've finished with all the outstanding votes and we've had 4 in the last week and a half.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wonder if it's possible to mod the software to allow preferential voting.

That would be really cool and I'd definitely support it, it would make these polls much more efficient and interactive and avoid the need for runoffs.

[Mr Bean]

Which is exactly what I said

Which is why I said it in far fewer words,.

[CmdrWilkens]

The vote is now closed. With 42 votes recorded out of 54 Active Senators we have a quorum to conduct business. Per the OP and vote rules we shall evaluate each punishment in succession:

Perma Ban: 14 total votes in favor out of 36 non-abstentions. The measure does NOT have a supermajority and fails.

Temp Ban: 17 votes in favor and 11 secondary preferences. The measure hold 28 votes out of 36 non-abstentions and carries a majority the measure PASSES.

If the appropriate Admin could enact a TempBan a seperate thread will be opened for discussion in regards to length.