Talk:346
From Nomicapolis
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Those who make proposals should be obliged to vote for them. Debate on this proposal will end at 9 p.m. (EST) Dec. 7, 2006. Applejuicefool 11:45, 4 December 2006 (EST)
Made minor wording changes to replace "proposer of a rule" with "proposer of a rule-change". Applejuicefool 12:01, 6 December 2006 (EST)
Debate
The wording of the fractional vote (and i understand why) almost suggests that if it is not your proposal, you could cast 1/2 your vote FOR, with 1/2 AGAINST, or 75/25, etc. I could support the proposal's passing, yet still be awarded points for voting against. This is a moot point if it is determined that it cannot be interpreted this way. --Tucana25 12:09, 6 December 2006 (EST)
- The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. 207 says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. Applejuicefool 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)
- I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --Chuck 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)
Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in 303 that allows anyone to even edit their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --Chuck 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
