Talk:341
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) (→Debate) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Just thought of another snag. Look at [[104]] and [[107]]. Rule changes must be voted on. Since these are immutable, they would automatically take precedence over this rule. The GG wouldn't be able to simply enact rule changes without having them voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 23:17, 29 November 2006 (EST) | Just thought of another snag. Look at [[104]] and [[107]]. Rule changes must be voted on. Since these are immutable, they would automatically take precedence over this rule. The GG wouldn't be able to simply enact rule changes without having them voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 23:17, 29 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | After this rule passes I will propose transmutation. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:08, 30 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 12:08, 30 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 04 December 2006 (EST)
Debate
Hey, Tom! As requested, I'm commenting on your Governor General draft. 317 already determines who the winner will be in such a case as mentioned in your draft - So the GG's duty there would just be to "declare" that person the winner. The GG would not decide the winner. In fact, you might want to make this proposal an amendment to 317. If it is your intention that the GG would determine the winner, then you could write that in, or if it is your intention that the GG would simply announce the winner, then you could import some of the verbiage from 317. Personally, I think the "most points" winner is the way to go there.
As far as the 2-vote reward thing for the winner, that's a little complicated. I think we're going to need to introduce some kind of legislation defining Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds before we do that. That way, we can say "The winner of the round receives two votes on all matters in the subsequent round of play," or something. In fact, I've got an idea for that now. I'll introduce it, and you'll see what I mean Applejuicefool 12:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Just thought of another snag. Look at 104 and 107. Rule changes must be voted on. Since these are immutable, they would automatically take precedence over this rule. The GG wouldn't be able to simply enact rule changes without having them voted on. Applejuicefool 23:17, 29 November 2006 (EST)
After this rule passes I will propose transmutation. --TomFoolery 07:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
