Talk:332
From Nomicapolis
| (10 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| - | + | I declare this proposal carried --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 13:48, 29 November 2006 (EST) | |
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
This proposal is to limit the ammout of proposals to help from overwhelming Players. Also it is to encourage quality over quantity in proposals. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:43, 25 November 2006 (EST) | This proposal is to limit the ammout of proposals to help from overwhelming Players. Also it is to encourage quality over quantity in proposals. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:43, 25 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have changed it from 2 to 3 and will be bring it to an immediate vote. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
<!--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--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | I am for it. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:01, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | This rule would be better after we have more players. Right now, it is not hard to stay on top of the proposals out there, and if we limit the number of proposals a player may have, we will drive away those players that like to remain very active. I certainly wouldn't want to play a game that would limit my activity. If you think a proposal is of poor quality, simply vote "against" it. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:55, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | If there must be a limit, let is be more. At least 3.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:31, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Shivan. 3 would be a good number. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | You don't mention inactive players. By [[308]] any player can propose a rule change. So an inactive player can propose an infinite number of rule changes provided that they do not vote and make themselves active again by [[314]]. Since you have voted on this proposal, it cannot be modified, per [[303]], therefore I must vote against.--[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:09, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 30: | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | ||
| - | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST) |
| + | #--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 19:50, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST); (If we need to make a rule or amendment to prevent abuse by inactives, we can do that. Currently, in order to take advantage of this loophole, a player would have to go inactive (no voting or debate for 14 days), and then refrain from voting, and then when they come back, they get 1/2 vote. A pretty big penalty, imo.) | ||
| + | #<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | ||
| + | # --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:12, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Current revision as of 18:48, 29 November 2006
I declare this proposal carried --Dayd 13:48, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This proposal is to limit the ammout of proposals to help from overwhelming Players. Also it is to encourage quality over quantity in proposals. --Dayd 15:43, 25 November 2006 (EST)
I have changed it from 2 to 3 and will be bring it to an immediate vote. --Dayd 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
I am for it. --Tucana25 00:01, 26 November 2006 (EST)
This rule would be better after we have more players. Right now, it is not hard to stay on top of the proposals out there, and if we limit the number of proposals a player may have, we will drive away those players that like to remain very active. I certainly wouldn't want to play a game that would limit my activity. If you think a proposal is of poor quality, simply vote "against" it. --TomFoolery 07:55, 26 November 2006 (EST)
If there must be a limit, let is be more. At least 3.--Shivan 07:31, 27 November 2006 (EST)
I agree with Shivan. 3 would be a good number. Applejuicefool 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)
You don't mention inactive players. By 308 any player can propose a rule change. So an inactive player can propose an infinite number of rule changes provided that they do not vote and make themselves active again by 314. Since you have voted on this proposal, it cannot be modified, per 303, therefore I must vote against.--TomFoolery 11:09, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
- --Dayd 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)
- --Tucana25 19:50, 27 November 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST); (If we need to make a rule or amendment to prevent abuse by inactives, we can do that. Currently, in order to take advantage of this loophole, a player would have to go inactive (no voting or debate for 14 days), and then refrain from voting, and then when they come back, they get 1/2 vote. A pretty big penalty, imo.)
Against
- --TomFoolery 11:12, 27 November 2006 (EST)
