Talk:373
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
m |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| + | I declare this proposal passed --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:30, 5 February 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
Proposed by [[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:26, 22 January 2007 (EST) | Proposed by [[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:26, 22 January 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 25: | ||
I would still perfer to have point 5 removed and to keep 311 intact as a seperate rule. I do think the other two rules should be merged together though. And I'll recheck the current census a little later, but it should be correct at 8 unless someone timed out in the last couple days. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:22, 27 January 2007 (EST) | I would still perfer to have point 5 removed and to keep 311 intact as a seperate rule. I do think the other two rules should be merged together though. And I'll recheck the current census a little later, but it should be correct at 8 unless someone timed out in the last couple days. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:22, 27 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think i may agree with you...i was trying to figure out how to add the info for mutability votes to this. Perhaps all fail/success could be merged as well... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 05:15, 28 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | More suggestions from the peanut gallery. The end of point 4 is the same as point 5. I would really like the quotation for proposals and voting periods to go away listed in point 1 and 3. I would rather it be a statement much contain when voting is started and debate will end so that it is more flexible and not the absolute that it is now i.e. "Debate will end 00:00 01 January 2007 (EST)" or "Debate will last until 00:00, 01 January 2007 (EST)" both being allowed under my suggestion in stead of the hard line "Debate will end for this proposal at **date and time**" which doesn't even state you have to substitute the date and time. Also I think we should drop the minimum 24 hour waiting period. The whole idea of the debate period is to give the proposer the benifit of a doubt so that others can make suggested changes to improve the possiblity of passing. I also perfer the declaration of pass/fail to be at the top of the page so I can see the result as soon as the page loads opposed to scrolling all the way to the vote section. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:48, 31 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | :I have taken your suggestions under advisement and made these adjustments. 4&5 were the same because i accidently copynpasted instead of cutnpasted. I'm also ok with all the other suggestions. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:15, 31 January 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
| + | I declare this open to a vote. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 06:26, 3 February 2007 (EST) | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | ||
| - | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 06:26, 3 February 2007 (EST) |
| + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 13:04, 3 February 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--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 14:30, 5 February 2007
I declare this proposal passed --Dayd 09:30, 5 February 2007 (EST)
Proposed by Tucana25 00:26, 22 January 2007 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This will change the time frame of debate and voting. I intend to scour the current ruleset to see if there are any other rules that might be able to combine into this or that need to be overhauled if this should pass...at this point, I'm at my limit (although I want to repeal that rule), so I'll wait for some comments.... --Tucana25 00:26, 22 January 2007 (EST)
Debate for this proposal shall end 00:01, 29 January 2007 (EST) --Tucana25 00:30, 22 January 2007 (EST)
I'm pretty sure I just thought I saved the main page...but I was only previewing it...cuz now it doesn't exist...so I intend to quickly go humpty (now is your chance to do the humpty dance) and see if I threw it together correctly later tomorrow or something. So I apologize if this proposal seems to be missing something...it very well could be... --Tucana25 00:35, 22 January 2007 (EST)
OK...as intended originally...this now combines 311, 326, 334. --Tucana25 19:23, 27 January 2007 (EST)
Debate
Um...you posed the proposal to the talk page and then created a talk of the talk, but I fixed it and put it where it goes...unless you undid it while I was doing it...since we're editting at each other at the moment. And I'm not sure I really like this at the moment. And I never did like the "Exact quote phrases" for declaring debate and starting voting. I would perfer a more generic state such as declare proposed time frame and declare voting open instead. Also since this is being changed why not just make it a blanket 4-7 days for debate and 3-7 days for voting instead of the original 24 hours. I think we've out grown the 24 hours to declare voting ended that is currently in effect. It was nice while it lasted, but it probably needs to be changed to something finite. --Dayd 00:41, 22 January 2007 (EST)
- It is with great relief that i see you happened to have this on your desktop...as i stated on the discussion for 371 I was trying to do all the proposals at once so i had 5 tabs open and somehow erased or whatever my actual proposal...so thank you... --Tucana25 00:58, 22 January 2007 (EST)
Something that had bounced around my head was that since we have election on the first of every month right now...what if we divided each month into 2 periods of elections...something like Debate and Proposal Jan1-10, Vote Jan11-15, Debate and Proposal Jan 16-25, Vote Jan26-31, Elections Jan26-31. I don't necessarily know that I would prefer that seing as I try to get on here every day and at least check out the action...but for the casual player, might this not be more attractive? I don't know...it was something I was pondering...--Tucana25 00:58, 22 January 2007 (EST)
I would still perfer to have point 5 removed and to keep 311 intact as a seperate rule. I do think the other two rules should be merged together though. And I'll recheck the current census a little later, but it should be correct at 8 unless someone timed out in the last couple days. --Dayd 22:22, 27 January 2007 (EST)
I think i may agree with you...i was trying to figure out how to add the info for mutability votes to this. Perhaps all fail/success could be merged as well... --Tucana25 05:15, 28 January 2007 (EST)
More suggestions from the peanut gallery. The end of point 4 is the same as point 5. I would really like the quotation for proposals and voting periods to go away listed in point 1 and 3. I would rather it be a statement much contain when voting is started and debate will end so that it is more flexible and not the absolute that it is now i.e. "Debate will end 00:00 01 January 2007 (EST)" or "Debate will last until 00:00, 01 January 2007 (EST)" both being allowed under my suggestion in stead of the hard line "Debate will end for this proposal at **date and time**" which doesn't even state you have to substitute the date and time. Also I think we should drop the minimum 24 hour waiting period. The whole idea of the debate period is to give the proposer the benifit of a doubt so that others can make suggested changes to improve the possiblity of passing. I also perfer the declaration of pass/fail to be at the top of the page so I can see the result as soon as the page loads opposed to scrolling all the way to the vote section. --Dayd 09:48, 31 January 2007 (EST)
- I have taken your suggestions under advisement and made these adjustments. 4&5 were the same because i accidently copynpasted instead of cutnpasted. I'm also ok with all the other suggestions. --Tucana25 21:15, 31 January 2007 (EST)
Vote
I declare this open to a vote. --Tucana25 06:26, 3 February 2007 (EST)
For
Against
Abstain
