Talk:340
From Nomicapolis
I declare this proposal failed. --Dayd 20:56, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer: Add your summary here
Feedback is welcome. I know that one problem is how to address what happens if there become less active players than elected positions. Hopefully, that never becomes an issue, but feedback would be appreciated. --Tucana25 00:30, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Debate shall end and voting commence Sunday December 3 at 12:01 AM EST for this proposal. --Tucana25 22:03, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
Problems I see: Clause 1: "Popular vote" is not defined by Nomicapolis rules. If 330 passes, the term "population" (related to popular) will be defined. This will make a "popular vote" a vote of the Citizens, not us.
Clause 2: The pronoun "they" has no antecedent.
Clause 3.1: "Not all positions will be voted on every month," could be taken to mean that it is a violation of the rules to vote on all positions every month.
Clause 3.2: I'm uncomfortable with the usage of "in writing." We're not actually writing these things, we're typing or posting them.
Clause 3.3: Replace "representatives" with "officials".
Clause 4: Requires an "emergency vote" without a reason (perhaps "A player who becomes inactive loses any official positions they may have held."?). Protocol is misspelled.
Discuss! Applejuicefool 11:12, 29 November 2006 (EST)
I have attempted to address the suggestions made for Clause 1-3. Clause 4 has been reworded and expanded upon. I'm still not sure I'm satisfied with it. Namely, how to word that players should be allowed to accept nominations without resigning if they already hold that position. Also, any suggestions on what should happen if there are less active players than elected positions. Maybe that would be a good reason to declare a winner? Thanks for your help. --Tucana25 22:49, 29 November 2006 (EST)
- 313 no longer exists; it has been amended by 326 Applejuicefool 23:21, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Tucana25 23:08, 2 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --Tucana25 23:18, 2 December 2006 (EST)
- --TomFoolery 19:16, 3 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- --Dayd 17:59, 3 December 2006 (EST) (To long for my ADD)
- Applejuicefool 11:12, 4 December 2006 (EST); (I've been debating this with myself, and I just don't like the idea of standardizing election procedure for all officials).
