Talk:348

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 15:31, 15 December 2006 (view source) Chuck (Talk | contribs) (→Against) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 04:55, 16 December 2006 (view source) Simulacrum (Talk | contribs) (→For) Next diff →
Line 26:		Line 26:
	# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
	# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:11, 14 December 2006 (EST)		# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:11, 14 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 23:55, 15 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

---

Revision as of 04:55, 16 December 2006

Contents 1 Proposer's summary and declarations 2 Debate 3 Vote 3.1 For 3.2 Against

Proposer's summary and declarations

Proposer's summary"Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00pm EST 17 DEC 2006." This is intended to end proposals that amend the same rule at the same time. Looking for information if the wording is good. --Dayd 21:19, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Another intent is so that player A doesn't: amend 400 as such while player B: repeal 400. Well what happens if both pass. What happens if B passes before A?

Debate

Add comments

I think it is more interesting when this is encouraged instead of forbidden. More like politics... --Tucana25 22:20, 5 December 2006 (EST)

I also added this proposal to the current events on the front page. --Tucana25 23:26, 5 December 2006 (EST)

Should the same rule be both amended and repealed, the intended result is that it should remain repealed, either before or after the amendment; in the latter case, the repealing proposal should follow to its new number and not try to abolish a non-existent rule; in the former one, the proposal to amend it becomes moot because a repealed rule cannot be amended. The current rules do not seem to count with this possibility; I have prepared a draft to deal with the situation. - Mike Rosoft 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)

Vote

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Dayd 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)

For

Add FOR vote

1. --Dayd 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
2. Applejuicefool 10:11, 14 December 2006 (EST)
3. Simulacrum 23:55, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. --Tucana25 23:17, 12 December 2006 (EST)
2. chuck 10:31, 15 December 2006 (EST) (The "otherwise references" clause is much too restrictive. Sorry I didn't catch this in debate.)