View Poll Results: To support motion 2012-B

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    22 75.86%
  • NO

    2 6.90%
  • ABSTAIN

    5 17.24%
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: 21B - "The Voting Booth" Motion 2012-B

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default 21B - "The Voting Booth" Motion 2012-B

    We have a complicated situation here folks - we have the original motion (shown in red below) with a properly moved and seconded amendment (in blue) which would replace the underlined sentence in the motion.

    Voting options are:
    (1) vote yes to amendment, yes to original motion if amendment fails
    (2) vote yes to amendment, no to original motion if amendment fails
    (3) vote no to amendment, yes to amended motion if amendment succeeds
    (4) vote no to amendment, no to amended motion if amendment succeeds
    (5) abstain


    =============================

    Here is the motion:

    I propose 101 be replaced by the following wording;

    "1010. Tie Break:

    Should two or more players finish the tournament with the same number of points the following tie-break systems are recommended.

    (a) Swiss Sections
    • Direct encounter
    • Sum of progressive score
    • Buchholz
    • Playoff
    • Sonneborn-Berger
    • Won games
    • Games played with Black

    (b) Round Robin Sections
    • Direct encounter
    • Playoff
    • Games played with Black
    • Koya
    • Sonneborn-Berger
    • Won games

    It is recommended that playoffs only be arranged to determine the official Canadian representative to the WYCC.

    If playoffs are planned adequate time must be set aside for a conclusion to be reached.
    Last edited by Lyle Craver; 10-05-2011 at 03:25 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Breslau
    Posts
    169

    Default Problem with options

    How would someone vote No to the motion whether the ammendment passes or fails?
    If someone is against the original motion, nothing to do with the ammendment, it would appear that if they vote for the option where the ammendment either succeeds or fails where it does the opposite, that their vote will not be counted against the motion.
    ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
    Patrick McDonald
    International Arbiter
    International Organizer

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    My apologies to everyone!

    I misread message #9 where Michael Barron starts "I second..." and realize now it was not a seconding of Mr. Zeromskis' amendment but of what Mr. Demian said.

    Thus we have an amendment with NO SECONDER (and thus no amendment) and I am taking things back to the original motion. Those who previously voted for the 'amendment' version of the motion please re-vote (there were 4 such people)
    Last edited by Lyle Craver; 10-05-2011 at 03:27 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •