Talk:356
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
(→Against) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| - | + | I declare this proposal passed. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 00:35, 21 December 2006 (EST) | |
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:33, 16 December 2006 (EST) | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 01:33, 16 December 2006 (EST) | ||
# [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 18:06, 16 December 2006 (EST) | # [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 18:06, 16 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:25, 19 December 2006 (EST) | ||
#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | #<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
Current revision as of 05:35, 21 December 2006
I declare this proposal passed. --Dayd 00:35, 21 December 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 15 December 2006 (EST)This is intended to get rid of all the rules to repeal rules littering the current rule set. Added that this rule isn't self repealable.
Debate
"This rule cannot be repealed by this rule." ... This comment is about how cool self-reference is :) chuck 12:08, 14 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Dayd 01:33, 16 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --Dayd 01:33, 16 December 2006 (EST)
- chuck 18:06, 16 December 2006 (EST)
- --TomFoolery 12:25, 19 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- Mike Rosoft 10:27, 17 December 2006 (EST) (This rule is phrased in a completely wrong way - what about a rule - such as proposal 344 - that repeals another rule and has other effect in addition to that? Sorry, I didn't find time to mention this before the proposal was up for voting - I only visit this site once in a while.)
- --Tucana25 09:05, 18 December 2006 (EST)
Abstain
