Talk:325
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Good Point. Maybe a change to the proposal that eliminates that would be good. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 16:55, 23 November 2006 (EST) | Good Point. Maybe a change to the proposal that eliminates that would be good. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 16:55, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Any new rule that negates a previous rule is considered a repeal of the previous rule, and as such, requires a super-majority to pass." Doesn't an amendment to a rule in fact nagate a pervious rule as the previous rule is repealed and the new amendment takes the new number. Also I think that you intend a "Simple Majority" and not just a "Majority" to be needed to amend or propose new rules. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:29, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 01:29, 24 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
It should be more difficult to repeal a rule than to amend it, or to create a new one. We should endeavor to work within the framework that we create wherever possible, and only to remove a part of that framework when no other options are available.
Debate
Add comments
But will someone not try to find a way to work around it? For example if 55% want the law passed they would create a new law, not repealing it, but rendering it useless or effectless.--Shivan 15:48, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Good Point. Maybe a change to the proposal that eliminates that would be good. --TomFoolery 16:55, 23 November 2006 (EST)
"Any new rule that negates a previous rule is considered a repeal of the previous rule, and as such, requires a super-majority to pass." Doesn't an amendment to a rule in fact nagate a pervious rule as the previous rule is repealed and the new amendment takes the new number. Also I think that you intend a "Simple Majority" and not just a "Majority" to be needed to amend or propose new rules. --Dayd 20:29, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
