Talk:321
From Nomicapolis
Tom Foolery (Talk | contribs) (→Debate) |
(repeal info) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | This rule was repealed by rule [[385]]. | ||
| + | |||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--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] | ||
| - | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | + | # --[[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"). | ||
| + | # --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 22:28, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
Current revision as of 15:39, 10 May 2007
This rule was repealed by rule 385.
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").
- --TomFoolery 22:28, 23 November 2006 (EST)
