Talk:385

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 14:03, 8 May 2007 (view source) Wooble (Talk | contribs) (opening voting) ← Previous diff		Current revision as of 15:33, 10 May 2007 (view source) Wooble (Talk | contribs) (passed)
(3 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	This proposal has passed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 11:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
		+
	Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)		Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Line 21:		Line 23:
	=== For ===		=== For ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}}
-	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->	+	# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 18:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
		+	# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
		+	# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 09:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />		<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />
		+
	=== Against ===		=== Against ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}}

---

Current revision as of 15:33, 10 May 2007

This proposal has passed. Wooble 11:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Proposed by --Tucana25 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Contents 1 Proposer's summary and declarations 2 Debate 3 Vote 3.1 For 3.2 Against 3.3 Abstain

Proposer's summary and declarations

Debate shall end for this proposal by May 5, 2007 00:01 EST.

I've combined rules 321, 328, and 363 as well as provide continuation of a judge if no players vote in a months election...If anyone would like to change anything about the position of 'judge', please let me know and i'll consider its merit. --Tucana25 02:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Proposer's summary

Debate

Add comments

I'd make this proposal explicitly take precedence over the rules it's intended to replace (otherwise most of it will only go into effect if/when they get repealed), and I'd also like to drop the reference to stare decisis. There's a reason that such a policy isn't actually part of American law but rather just a policy of the courts; it binds a judge to follow any precedents that are contrary to the actual wording of the rules. Wooble 09:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with the idea about repealing the other rules at the same time, but a while back i tried to do that and it repealed the rule because 356 automatically takes that action...so if it looks like this has popular support i will add a proposal to be voted on at the same time. Regarding the stare decisis, I'm cool with that... --66.41.83.16 09:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT) (that was me...--Tucana25 09:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT))

Vote

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. Wooble 10:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

For

Add FOR vote

1. BobTHJ 18:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
2. --Tucana25 23:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
3. Wooble 09:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

Abstain

Add Abstention