Talk:335
From Nomicapolis
I declare this proposal passed. --Dayd 20:51, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This is to give some sort of punishment to breaking the rules. As of now nothing happens if you break the rules aside from the action being declared invaild. --Dayd 18:35, 26 November 2006 (EST) Gave some more info regarding it. Yes the Judge will Judge himself, but is still subject to a unanimous overturn. And yes you would end up getting double tapped with rule 101 so I'll change it to 10 points each. Wasn't sure if anyone was going to catch that. --Dayd 14:50, 28 November 2006 (EST) I changed the proposal again. Debate will end for this proposal at a later date and time. --Dayd 14:12, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
So what does it mean to break the rules? Currently, players must abide by the rules (101), so would any rule breaker be fined 40 points, because they broke 101 in addition to whatever other rule? Should this rule entail honest mistakes, or just intentional rule-breaking? At any rate, I would like to see some kind of clause about reversing the actions of the rule-breaking in addition to any point penalty. Applejuicefool 09:20, 28 November 2006 (EST)
- As per my comments above, I would instead prefer to see amendments to rules designating specific penalties (or a range of penalties to be assessed at the discretion of the Judge) for specific actions which violate those rules. Or, possibly, instead of a flat rate, say that the Judge has the power and responsibility to determine fair penalties for rulebreakers; these decisions would then become precedent (stare decisis). Applejuicefool 09:02, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Also, the proposal mentions to 'brake' the rules. --Tucana25 19:22, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Dayd 18:05, 3 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --Dayd 18:05, 3 December 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 10:56, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- --Shivan 12:19, 4 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- --Tucana25 18:34, 3 December 2006 (EST)
- --TomFoolery 19:13, 3 December 2006 (EST)
