Talk:348

From Nomicapolis

(Difference between revisions)
(→Debate)
 
(9 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
<!--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&section=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)
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=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 14: Line 18:
I also added this proposal to the current events on the front page. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:26, 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Should the same rule be both amended and repealed, the intended result is that it should remain repealed, either before or after the amendment; in the latter case, the repealing proposal should follow to its new number and not try to abolish a non-existent rule; in the former one, the proposal to amend it becomes moot because a repealed rule cannot be amended.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&section=4 Add FOR vote]
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=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&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=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

Add comments

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

Add FOR vote

  1. --Dayd 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
  2. Applejuicefool 10:11, 14 December 2006 (EST)
  3. Simulacrum 23:55, 15 December 2006 (EST)


Against

Add AGAINST vote

  1. --Tucana25 23:17, 12 December 2006 (EST)
  2. chuck 10:31, 15 December 2006 (EST) (The "otherwise references" clause is much too restrictive. Sorry I didn't catch this in debate.)
  3. Mike Rosoft 10:18, 17 December 2006 (EST)
  4. --TomFoolery 12:27, 19 December 2006 (EST)



Retrieved from "http://editthis.info/nomicapolis/Talk:348"
Personal tools