What does a "group majority" mean?

[roblee]

801.03 A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower.

4-person card making IB/OB decision
1-Thrower, In
1-I don't know/can't tell
2-OB

I think 2 is not a majority of the card so, IB. This means 3 votes is the minimum for a decision on a 4-person card. Does anyone think 2 for OB is a majority over each of the other 1-vote decisions?

 

[ru4por]

801.03 A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower.

4-person card making IB/OB decision
1-Thrower, In
1-I don't know/can't tell
2-OB

I think 2 is not a majority of the card so, IB. This means 3 votes is the minimum for a decision on a 4-person card. Does anyone think 2 for OB is a majority over each of the other 1-vote decisions?

Complete abstinence is the only way to guarantee protection against STDs. Not cool in disc golf...........make a call.

 

[DavidSauls]

Well, that group could then vote on what constitutes a majority....

 

[DavidSauls]

....but without adding pages of parliamentary procedure to the rulebook to cover group decision dynamics, I'm pretty confident that they'd go with the "majority of voters".

 

[biscoe]

801.03 A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower.

4-person card making IB/OB decision
1-Thrower, In
1-I don't know/can't tell
2-OB

I think 2 is not a majority of the card so, IB. This means 3 votes is the minimum for a decision on a 4-person card. Does anyone think 2 for OB is a majority over each of the other 1-vote decisions?

I would interpret that vote as 2.5 OB, 1.5 In.

 

[glassila]

I agree with "majority of voters" which is more than half.
3 players in a 4 player group, 2 players in a 3 player group.

 

[Keokuk Discer]

801.03 A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower.

4-person card making IB/OB decision
1-Thrower, In
1-I don't know/can't tell
2-OB

I think 2 is not a majority of the card so, IB. This means 3 votes is the minimum for a decision on a 4-person card. Does anyone think 2 for OB is a majority over each of the other 1-vote decisions?

From Google dictionary:

"
ma·jor·i·ty
noun

the greater number.
"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

So in you're scenario, it would be OB since the greater number voted OB.

 

[glassila]

From Google dictionary:

"
ma·jor·i·ty
noun

the greater number.
"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

So in you're scenario, it would be OB since the greater number voted OB.

You are refering to a plurality vote which means whoever gets the most votes wins.
This is a majority vote situation which means someone (in this case a call) needs to get more than 50% of the votes in order to win.

801.03.A: When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower.

 

[roblee]

From Google dictionary:

"
ma·jor·i·ty
noun

the greater number.
"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"

So in you're scenario, it would be OB since the greater number voted OB.

This is why I think the rule could explain better. You described a plurality-the decision that got the greatest number of votes. A majority vote in most jurisdictions is more than half of the voting population. That's why we often have runoffs after general elections because no candidate receives a majority (over half) of the total votes.

edit. oops, just saw glassila's post

 

[Steve West]

I agree with "majority of voters" which is more than half.
3 players in a 4 player group, 2 players in a 3 player group.

"Voters" is different than "those eligible to vote".

 

[roblee]

For a rule edit could you say "majority of players on the card"? Then spell it out: 2 of 3, 3 of 4, 3 of 5, 4 of 6 ...

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't think the rule anticipates abstentions.

Among the cures could be adding "failure to participate in a group decision" to the courtesy violations."

Though, ultimately, I think that any cure in this case is worse than the disease -- more elaborate voting rules, for the rare case in which someone refused to help decide a single stroke?

 

[ru4por]

I don't think the rule anticipates abstentions.

Among the cures could be adding "failure to participate in a group decision" to the courtesy violations."

Though, ultimately, I think that any cure in this case is worse than the disease -- more elaborate voting rules, for the rare case in which someone refused to help decide a single stroke?

Lol....that was kind of my point above, as well.

This is not rocket science and there are a bunch of truly ambiguous rules in our game, that are in real need of attention.

 

[glassila]

I don't think the rule anticipates abstentions.

Among the cures could be adding "failure to participate in a group decision" to the courtesy violations."

Though, ultimately, I think that any cure in this case is worse than the disease -- more elaborate voting rules, for the rare case in which someone refused to help decide a single stroke?

Player 1: "The disc is in!"
Player 2: "I abstain"
Player 3: "The disc is out!"
Player 4: "I recuse myself from this sham election!"

 

[ru4por]

Player 1: "The disc is in!"
Player 2: "I abstain"
Player 3: "The disc is out!"
Player 4: "I recuse myself from this sham election!"

The issue here is the non votes, not the rule. You cannot decide, to not participate, in the event you signed up for.

Meh......I don't feel like putting out this hole, I'm kind of tired.

The answer is to take a provisional and let the TD sort out the call.

 

[krupicka]

I don't think the rule anticipates abstentions.

Among the cures could be adding "failure to participate in a group decision" to the courtesy violations."

This is the conundrum. If we explicitly define it as majority of players on the card, then if someone is not deciding one way or the other, there can't be a majority on a four person card where the thrower doesn't get to decide. If we explicitly define it as a majority of those voting, then some players may say that the rules imply I don't have to get involved.

Say the group is trying to determine last place in bounds. The challenge with the courtesy violation is differentiating between someone that was still walking back to their bag while the next guy threw vs someone that was watching cat videos on their phone vs someone who was watching the throw but doesn't want to speak up. The former has a legit excuse, the latter two do not. Working that into the rules is tough.

FWIW I interpret majority as majority of those "voting". That is how most votes are tallied for elections, etc.

 

[roblee]

From krupicka: "FWIW I interpret majority as majority of those "voting". That is how most votes are tallied for elections, etc."

Then I would suggest that abstention is a valid vote. So is "I don't know". This isn't the Colosseum after all. If I didn't hear or see something or if my brain or eyes can't interpret the data how can I say if it is "In" or "Out"? Of course there are several situations where penalties can be assessed by 2 players despite the number on the card. Hmmm, maybe all penalties should require a vote? It certainly can be a conundrum as krupicka says.