Talk:348
From Nomicapolis
| (12 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| - | + | ||
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
<!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.--> | <!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | I declare this proposal failed. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 11:26, 21 December 2006 (EST) | ||
== Proposer's summary and declarations == | == Proposer's summary and declarations == | ||
| - | [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=1 Proposer | + | [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=1 Proposer's summary]"Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00pm EST 17 DEC 2006." This is intended to end proposals that amend the same rule at the same time. Looking for information if the wording is good. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:19, 5 December 2006 (EST) |
| + | |||
| + | Another intent is so that player A doesn't: amend 400 as such while player B: repeal 400. Well what happens if both pass. What happens if B passes before A? | ||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 15: | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| + | I think it is more interesting when this is encouraged instead of forbidden. More like politics... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:20, 5 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also added this proposal to the current events on the front page. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:26, 5 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Should the same rule be both amended and repealed, the intended result is that it should remain repealed, either before or after the amendment; in the latter case, the repealing proposal should follow to its new number and not try to abolish a non-existent rule; in the former one, the proposal to amend it becomes moot because a repealed rule cannot be amended. The current rules do not seem to count with this possibility; I have prepared [[User:Mike Rosoft/drafts#Update of references|a draft]] to deal with the situation. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
| + | Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST) | ||
=== 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]] 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST) |
| + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:11, 14 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 23:55, 15 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | <!--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:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:17, 12 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 10:31, 15 December 2006 (EST) (The "otherwise references" clause is much too restrictive. Sorry I didn't catch this in debate.) | ||
| + | #[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 10:18, 17 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:27, 19 December 2006 (EST) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
Current revision as of 16:26, 21 December 2006
I declare this proposal failed. --Tucana25 11:26, 21 December 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary"Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00pm EST 17 DEC 2006." This is intended to end proposals that amend the same rule at the same time. Looking for information if the wording is good. --Dayd 21:19, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Another intent is so that player A doesn't: amend 400 as such while player B: repeal 400. Well what happens if both pass. What happens if B passes before A?
Debate
I think it is more interesting when this is encouraged instead of forbidden. More like politics... --Tucana25 22:20, 5 December 2006 (EST)
I also added this proposal to the current events on the front page. --Tucana25 23:26, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Should the same rule be both amended and repealed, the intended result is that it should remain repealed, either before or after the amendment; in the latter case, the repealing proposal should follow to its new number and not try to abolish a non-existent rule; in the former one, the proposal to amend it becomes moot because a repealed rule cannot be amended. The current rules do not seem to count with this possibility; I have prepared a draft to deal with the situation. - Mike Rosoft 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Dayd 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --Dayd 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 10:11, 14 December 2006 (EST)
- Simulacrum 23:55, 15 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- --Tucana25 23:17, 12 December 2006 (EST)
- chuck 10:31, 15 December 2006 (EST) (The "otherwise references" clause is much too restrictive. Sorry I didn't catch this in debate.)
- Mike Rosoft 10:18, 17 December 2006 (EST)
- --TomFoolery 12:27, 19 December 2006 (EST)
