Talk:313
From Nomicapolis
(→Conflict?) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Is it just me, or does this rule conflict with [[303]]? And if so, wouldn't [[303]] take precedence, via [[210]]? So doesn't this reasoning make [[313]] meaningless? [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 17:20, 14 November 2006 (EST) | Is it just me, or does this rule conflict with [[303]]? And if so, wouldn't [[303]] take precedence, via [[210]]? So doesn't this reasoning make [[313]] meaningless? [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 17:20, 14 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| - | No there is no conflict. This rule simply says that debate will last no less than 24 hours and no more than 14 days and that a vote will last no less than 24 hour and no more than 7 days. [[303]] states that debate will last 3 days, but the player that proposed it may reduce the debate time. This simply allows a 24 hour period that the player that proposed the rule must let debate be open. Likewise it limits the time that debate and voting may have at most which is not covered anywhere. I was thinking of proposing an amendment to stricten 1-1.2 and keeping 2 and 3. | + | No there is no conflict. This rule simply says that debate will last no less than 24 hours and no more than 14 days and that a vote will last no less than 24 hour and no more than 7 days. [[303]] states that debate will last 3 days, but the player that proposed it may reduce the debate time. This simply allows a 24 hour period that the player that proposed the rule must let debate be open. Likewise it limits the time that debate and voting may have at most which is not covered anywhere. I was thinking of proposing an amendment to stricten 1-1.2 and keeping 2 and 3. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:34, 14 November 2006 (EST) |
| + | |||
| + | Ok, rereading it I can see that conflict probably wouldn't arise very much, but I still think it's possible. For instance, if debate was about to go past 14 days, and one player said "I'm not satisfied, continue the debate", and the proposer decided not to cancel, [[303]] would take precedence and debate would continue. I think a simple amendment to 313 saying "In case of conflict, this rule takes precedence over Rule 303" would be the easiest way to solve the matter. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 23:13, 14 November 2006 (EST) | ||
Current revision as of 04:13, 15 November 2006
This is the discussion page for a current mutable rule. Its vote archive can be found at this location: Talk:313/vote-archive-1
Conflict?
Is it just me, or does this rule conflict with 303? And if so, wouldn't 303 take precedence, via 210? So doesn't this reasoning make 313 meaningless? Applejuicefool 17:20, 14 November 2006 (EST)
No there is no conflict. This rule simply says that debate will last no less than 24 hours and no more than 14 days and that a vote will last no less than 24 hour and no more than 7 days. 303 states that debate will last 3 days, but the player that proposed it may reduce the debate time. This simply allows a 24 hour period that the player that proposed the rule must let debate be open. Likewise it limits the time that debate and voting may have at most which is not covered anywhere. I was thinking of proposing an amendment to stricten 1-1.2 and keeping 2 and 3. --Dayd 21:34, 14 November 2006 (EST)
Ok, rereading it I can see that conflict probably wouldn't arise very much, but I still think it's possible. For instance, if debate was about to go past 14 days, and one player said "I'm not satisfied, continue the debate", and the proposer decided not to cancel, 303 would take precedence and debate would continue. I think a simple amendment to 313 saying "In case of conflict, this rule takes precedence over Rule 303" would be the easiest way to solve the matter. Applejuicefool 23:13, 14 November 2006 (EST)
