Talk:321
From Nomicapolis
(→For) |
(→For) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | ||
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:24, 23 November 2006 (EST) | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:24, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 21:57, 23 November 2006 (EST); (Good rule. There will need to be some precedents set, such as how the judge decides what constitutes a "problem"). | ||
<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
Revision as of 02:57, 24 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This is to create an elected position of Judge. The Judge will be in charge of any rule disputes that may arise.
Debate
I think with both of the office suggestions, we are too few players. Almost half of the players will have an office, and have a lot of power. I think we should be more players before it is passed.--Shivan 13:13, 20 November 2006 (EST)
Well that is part of the reason behind these proposals. One is that we do need a Judge reguardless of what anyone may claim there will be situations that arise that will require some to officate. I am baffled how anyone manage to convince anyone that a Judge is not a required position. As for the Mayor that is to just make the game more interesting. --Dayd 21:51, 20 November 2006 (EST)
The idea of a Judge is a good one, but with the limited number of active players it may be wise to amend the voting periodicity pending some future larger number of actives. --Tom Foolery 17:27, 22 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
- --Dayd 20:24, 23 November 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 21:57, 23 November 2006 (EST); (Good rule. There will need to be some precedents set, such as how the judge decides what constitutes a "problem").
