Talk:346

From Nomicapolis

Current revision as of 00:00, 13 December 2006

I declare this proposal passed. --Dayd 19:00, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Proposer's summary and declarations

Those who make proposals should be obliged to vote for them. Debate on this proposal will end at 9 p.m. (EST) Dec. 7, 2006. Applejuicefool 11:45, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Made minor wording changes to replace "proposer of a rule" with "proposer of a rule-change". Applejuicefool 12:01, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Debate

Add comments

The wording of the fractional vote (and i understand why) almost suggests that if it is not your proposal, you could cast 1/2 your vote FOR, with 1/2 AGAINST, or 75/25, etc. I could support the proposal's passing, yet still be awarded points for voting against. This is a moot point if it is determined that it cannot be interpreted this way. --Tucana25 12:09, 6 December 2006 (EST)

The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. 207 says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. Applejuicefool 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)

I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --Chuck 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Oh sigh, 319 does start regarding votes as fractional. I think it calls for a proposal. --Chuck 17:49, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in 303 that allows anyone to even edit their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --Chuck 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Hey Chuck, I took a look at the current ruleset and there are a couple of rules that deals with your concerns. Regard proposal withdrawl rule 326 section 2 states: "Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed." Though I'm not the judge, it reads to me that if the proposer does not call an end to debate within the time period the proposal shall be withdrawn, currently with no penalty. And regarding editing the proposal during debate: Per Rule 111: "The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on..." allows, for at least the proposer, the right to edit a proposal during debate.--Simulacrum 20:18, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Chuck, if you have some suggestions as to ways to amend this process (326, 319), check out the Game-direction page. There has begun a discussion about exactly what you were mentioning. --Tucana25 21:53, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. Applejuicefool 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Vote

For

Add FOR vote

1. Applejuicefool 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)
2. --TomFoolery 10:25, 9 December 2006 (EST)
3. --Tucana25 18:01, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. --Dayd 12:22, 9 December 2006 (EST)
2. Mike Rosoft 13:44, 9 December 2006 (EST) (too limiting)

Abstain