Talk:341

From Nomicapolis

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

Proposer's summary and declarations

Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 04 December 2006 (EST)

Debate

Add comments

Hey, Tom! As requested, I'm commenting on your Governor General draft. 317 already determines who the winner will be in such a case as mentioned in your draft - So the GG's duty there would just be to "declare" that person the winner. The GG would not decide the winner. In fact, you might want to make this proposal an amendment to 317. If it is your intention that the GG would determine the winner, then you could write that in, or if it is your intention that the GG would simply announce the winner, then you could import some of the verbiage from 317. Personally, I think the "most points" winner is the way to go there.

As far as the 2-vote reward thing for the winner, that's a little complicated. I think we're going to need to introduce some kind of legislation defining Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds before we do that. That way, we can say "The winner of the round receives two votes on all matters in the subsequent round of play," or something. In fact, I've got an idea for that now. I'll introduce it, and you'll see what I mean Applejuicefool 12:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Just thought of another snag. Look at 104 and 107. Rule changes must be voted on. Since these are immutable, they would automatically take precedence over this rule. The GG wouldn't be able to simply enact rule changes without having them voted on. Applejuicefool 23:17, 29 November 2006 (EST)

I have addressed the issue. --TomFoolery 07:15, 30 November 2006 (EST)

After this rule passes I will propose transmutation. --TomFoolery 07:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Okay, but you realize that as long as this is a mutable rule (until it is transmuted), the statement that it takes precedence is ineffective against immutable rules, right? Also, take another look at clause 4...something wrong with it grammatically. Might be as simple as changing the first comma to a semicolon. Applejuicefool 07:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Clause 4 was the combination of two independent clauses, so a semicolon was the right choice, I was just in too much of a hurry the first time around to worry about it. As far as the immutable thing, this will just have to be an ineffective rule until it is transmuted. --TomFoolery 07:38, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Vote

Debate is closed this proposal must now be voted on. --TomFoolery 07:32, 4 December 2006 (EST)

For

Add FOR vote

1. --TomFoolery 07:30, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. Applejuicefool 11:16, 4 December 2006 (EST); (I have the feeling that this position, as stated, is rife with possibility for abuse - nothing here saying he must name the person who actually won by the rules).