Talk:324
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) (→For) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| - | + | Quick question: Is this up for vote already? Look at [[303]] and [[313]]. The way I read em, [[303]] requires 3 days of debate unless the proposer declares an early end to the debate. [[313]] says the debate will last at least 24 hours. So since [[303]] takes precedence (c.f. [[210]]), we need to wait 3 days unless Shivan cuts it short. Is my reasoning faulty? | |
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 19:38, 25 November 2006
Please substitute this template. To do so add subst: in the template call. This is how it should look typed: {{subst:vote}}
When it is fixed please remove these instructions by editing the page normally.
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This rule will prevent abuse of rules. It is also a conerstone in real life legislation.--Shivan 12:12, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
Add comments Quick question: Is this up for vote already? Look at 303 and 313. The way I read em, 303 requires 3 days of debate unless the proposer declares an early end to the debate. 313 says the debate will last at least 24 hours. So since 303 takes precedence (c.f. 210), we need to wait 3 days unless Shivan cuts it short. Is my reasoning faulty?
Vote
For
- --TomFoolery 13:59, 25 November 2006 (EST)
Against
