Talk:334
From Nomicapolis
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Since section 1 of 303 has been modified by 313 and by 326 if it passes, only sections 2 and 3 of 303 will be valid. Since it is not possible to combine two nearly identical rules into one, per 111, this is the only alternative. --TomFoolery 12:30, 26 November 2006 (EST)
Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 06 December 2006 (EST)
Debate
The problem I see with this proposal: Who's to say what is the number of votes required to pass or fail? We currently have 15 players in this game. Of those, 6 have full votes the next time they vote; 9 have half-votes. So to guarantee a rule passes, it must have 5 1/2 votes. BUT...new players could join the game! So there's really no way to determine the number of votes required to pass or fail without setting a time deadline for the vote. Applejuicefool 09:13, 28 November 2006 (EST)
326 sets a time deadline for voting, so 334 doesn't need to, it also indicates who is eligible to vote on a proposal.
- "2. The person proposing the rule change shall call a vote at the end of the debate. The debate period can be cut short by the proposer with the calling for of a vote. Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed. If a vote is called, it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted or when it has been 24 hours since the last vote has been cast on the given proposal." --TomFoolery 11:01, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Okay, maybe I'm dense, but I just don't quite see the point of this proposal (at least, of the section we're discussing). If the time period defined in 334 ends, then it's over - anybody can already declare an end to voting and enact the rule by 116....Heck, we've been doing it! Applejuicefool 12:01, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Straying perhaps into the ridiculous, I see a weird loophole with clause #3: If a player really wanted to be a butt and screw things up, they could delay the game indefinitely by voting "erroneously", then waiting 29 minutes and voting "erroneously" again, and so forth ad infinitum. Applejuicefool 12:07, 28 November 2006 (EST)
I believe that I have fixed the loophole, as far as the need for this proposal, it is intended to fix the inconsistency between 303 and 326, by removing the first part of 303. Sections 1 and 2 of this proposal are the same as sections 2 and 3 of 303.
- Okay, I get it now. Thanks for the explanation. And yes, I believe that fixes the loophole. Applejuicefool 13:54, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
