Talk:343
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) (→Against) |
Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs) (Fixed typo) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Probably should include "precedence over every other rule determining inactivity" --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:10, 1 December 2006 (EST) | Probably should include "precedence over every other rule determining inactivity" --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:10, 1 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| - | Debate is closed. This | + | Debate is closed. This proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:12, 5 December 2006 (EST) |
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 12:44, 8 December 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This rule is designed to allow the game to recover more quickly should it go into a state of decline. I do not believe that we should quibble about such things as half-votes and extra limits on proposals if the player count drops much below what it is currently. Applejuicefool 11:44, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Debate on this proposal will end at 11 p.m. on Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Applejuicefool 11:45, 1 December 2006 (EST)
- Good point, Dayd. I'll fix it now. Applejuicefool 21:34, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Debate
Add comments Probably should include "precedence over every other rule determining inactivity" --Dayd 19:10, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Debate is closed. This proposal must now be voted on. Applejuicefool 10:12, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
- Applejuicefool 10:12, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- --Tucana25 22:27, 5 December 2006 (EST)
- Chuck 14:45, 6 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- --TomFoolery 16:01, 7 December 2006 (EST)
