Talk:327
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| + | Excellent idea. Two qualms, one trivial, one a bit more important. Trivial first: Fix the first spelling of "abstain" in the rule. Not so trivial: Take a gander at rule [[311]]. The way your rule is worded, and the way [[311]] is worded, an abstention would still count as a ''de facto'' "against" vote. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:34, 24 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 15:34, 24 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
I feel that sometimes you are neither for nor against, but you still want to vote. Also this will make the game we have now more steamlined as proposals can be ended when all have cast their votes. If the player(s) who wish to abstain has no other method of doing it than not to vote, then all proposals take 24 hours longer to pass.
Debate
Add comments Excellent idea. Two qualms, one trivial, one a bit more important. Trivial first: Fix the first spelling of "abstain" in the rule. Not so trivial: Take a gander at rule 311. The way your rule is worded, and the way 311 is worded, an abstention would still count as a de facto "against" vote. Applejuicefool 10:34, 24 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
