Talk:314/vote-archive-1
From Nomicapolis
m (Quorum not quotom) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Rules for declaring inactivity is a good thing. However at the moment it won't do anything, but put members in a special class. We can use this to put restricts on this class in the future. I'd actually like to see this Nomic end up in a "class society" based on activity and points the more of both you have the better off in "society" you are. | Rules for declaring inactivity is a good thing. However at the moment it won't do anything, but put members in a special class. We can use this to put restricts on this class in the future. I'd actually like to see this Nomic end up in a "class society" based on activity and points the more of both you have the better off in "society" you are. | ||
--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:06, 7 November 2006 (EST) | --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:06, 7 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
I know that is does not do anything, but i would not suggest actual concequences of inactivity as I thought oposition was much more likely. Becuase this rule is basicly just in initial steps, I expect it to be passed quickly and painlessly. Although there are no concequences right now; the next law could include a rule that your voting power is reduced or you do don't count in the Quorum if you are inactive. Basicly I just want to open for up for further legislation. | I know that is does not do anything, but i would not suggest actual concequences of inactivity as I thought oposition was much more likely. Becuase this rule is basicly just in initial steps, I expect it to be passed quickly and painlessly. Although there are no concequences right now; the next law could include a rule that your voting power is reduced or you do don't count in the Quorum if you are inactive. Basicly I just want to open for up for further legislation. | ||
--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 13:58, 7 November 2006 (EST) | --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 13:58, 7 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | How about if we amend it to include debating on an amendment as well? Even though I suppose if you haven't voted on an amendment you're probably even less likely to debate one. | ||
| + | --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:00, 7 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 03:00, 8 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Inspired by the the Game-direction I have started the legislation on inactivity. This is a rule to deal with inactivity. It merely defines what inactivity is defined as. The 14 days which is the limit of activity is inspired by rule 313, which acording to rule 313 14 days is the longest time a debate is allowed to linger. I choose not to add concequences for inactivity as I felt I might break rule 111. Aditionally with the definition of inactivity in this rule and rules for the concequences in later rules, the need for constant ammendment to this rule is avoided. --Shivan 12:49, 6 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
Rules for declaring inactivity is a good thing. However at the moment it won't do anything, but put members in a special class. We can use this to put restricts on this class in the future. I'd actually like to see this Nomic end up in a "class society" based on activity and points the more of both you have the better off in "society" you are. --Dayd 11:06, 7 November 2006 (EST)
I know that is does not do anything, but i would not suggest actual concequences of inactivity as I thought oposition was much more likely. Becuase this rule is basicly just in initial steps, I expect it to be passed quickly and painlessly. Although there are no concequences right now; the next law could include a rule that your voting power is reduced or you do don't count in the Quorum if you are inactive. Basicly I just want to open for up for further legislation. --Shivan 13:58, 7 November 2006 (EST)
How about if we amend it to include debating on an amendment as well? Even though I suppose if you haven't voted on an amendment you're probably even less likely to debate one. --Dayd 22:00, 7 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
