Talk:309

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 20:50, 29 October 2006 (view source) Dayd (Talk | contribs) (→Against) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 20:52, 29 October 2006 (view source) Dayd (Talk | contribs) Next diff →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->		<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->
-	Please substitute this template. To do so add '''subst:''' in the template call. This is how it should look typed: <big><nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:vote<nowiki>}}</nowiki></big> <br /> When it is fixed please remove these instructions by editing the page normally.	+	This is the discussion page for a current mutable rule. Its vote archive can be found at this location: [[Talk:311/vote-archive-1]]
	<!--END INSTRUCTIONS-->		<!--END INSTRUCTIONS-->

---

Revision as of 20:52, 29 October 2006

This is the discussion page for a current mutable rule. Its vote archive can be found at this location: Talk:311/vote-archive-1

Contents 1 Proposer's summary and declarations 2 Debate 3 Vote 3.1 For 3.2 Against

Proposer's summary and declarations

This is our first step in getting rid of the double rules that were created by accident in the beginning (Rules 104 and 105. As per rule 103 immutable rules cannot be repealed but they can be turned into mutable rules with unanimous consent. Once this rule becomes mutable we can repeal it. Let's open this proposal for voting right away.

Debate

Add comments

My mistake, a simple copy / paste error. Oh well. Simulacrum 21:16, 16 April 2006 (PDT)

Was there a rule that got left out (either 104 or 105 that should have read something else)? Is it something we need to get added? Maybe we need an amendment rather than a repeal of 105 after it becomes mutable... Applejuicefool 07:10, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

The rules was supposed to read Any registered user may propose a rule-change and is an eligible voter. Rule 302 covers all the points that 105 was supposed to have. See this diff for the rule as it was. The reason why it is not a rule, is that the specific text did not have its own page. And by the time that I realized my boo-boo it was moot. I suggest that an eventual repeal of 105 would be best along with, if needed an amendment to and transmutation of 302. Simulacrum 10:40, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

Vote

For

Add FOR vote

1. sinblox 19:50, 15 April 2006 (PDT)
2. Applejuicefool 22:30, 15 April 2006 (PDT)
3. Simulacrum 21:17, 16 April 2006 (PDT)
4. Pugrins 16:50, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

Against

Add AGAINST vote