Talk:358
From Nomicapolis
(→Proposer's summary and declarations) |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| - | + | I declare this proposal passed. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:08, 4 January 2007 (EST) | |
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Debate for this proposal shall end December 22, 2006 at 00:01 EST --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:15, 19 December 2006 (EST) | Debate for this proposal shall end December 22, 2006 at 00:01 EST --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:15, 19 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have changed a few things and am now calling for a vote. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:17, 1 January 2007 (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--> | ||
| + | Well if we're going to be fixing that why not amend the rule to make the Judge the judge of if a proposal is proper like the original rule set intended. The reason I think this was created and correct me if I'm wrong AJF was because there wasn't a way to determine who a Judge was in the beginning. I mean we've only had 1 vote of improper proposal and it was initally brought to the Judge who ruled that he couldn't rule. That and then we don't have to wait 3 days for all the votes to come in to decide if the rule is proper or not. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:46, 20 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | Correct me if I'm wrong but I think its either time to vote, or this proposal fails due to apathy. --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 06:49, 28 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Per [[326]], he gets 14 days. The "debate will end" bit is really just a suggestion as far as I can tell, since [[111]] doesn't allow anyone else but a Judge to force voting to start. [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 12:52, 28 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Section 2c is mostly just copied from the original rule. I'm of the understanding where if someone calls for a vote for improper proposal, five and two 1/2 points are awarded (half the ten/five you get for a rule proposal) --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:51, 3 January 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 28: | ||
=== 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] | ||
| + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:17, 1 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:27, 2 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | # --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 13:56, 3 January 2007 (EST) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--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]] 12:59, 3 January 2007 (EST) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Abstain === | === Abstain === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--> | ||
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=6 Add Abstention] | [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=6 Add Abstention] | ||
| - | # | + | # [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 12:22, 3 January 2007 (EST) (Section 2.c is incoherent to me) |
__NOEDITSECTION__ | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Current revision as of 23:08, 4 January 2007
I declare this proposal passed. --Dayd 18:08, 4 January 2007 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This fixes the dead-end link to a repealed rule as discussed in the Game Direction
Debate for this proposal shall end December 22, 2006 at 00:01 EST --Tucana25 16:15, 19 December 2006 (EST)
I have changed a few things and am now calling for a vote. --Tucana25 22:17, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Debate
Add comments Well if we're going to be fixing that why not amend the rule to make the Judge the judge of if a proposal is proper like the original rule set intended. The reason I think this was created and correct me if I'm wrong AJF was because there wasn't a way to determine who a Judge was in the beginning. I mean we've only had 1 vote of improper proposal and it was initally brought to the Judge who ruled that he couldn't rule. That and then we don't have to wait 3 days for all the votes to come in to decide if the rule is proper or not. --Dayd 11:46, 20 December 2006 (EST)
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think its either time to vote, or this proposal fails due to apathy. --Finisterre 06:49, 28 December 2006 (EST)
Per 326, he gets 14 days. The "debate will end" bit is really just a suggestion as far as I can tell, since 111 doesn't allow anyone else but a Judge to force voting to start. chuck 12:52, 28 December 2006 (EST)
Section 2c is mostly just copied from the original rule. I'm of the understanding where if someone calls for a vote for improper proposal, five and two 1/2 points are awarded (half the ten/five you get for a rule proposal) --Tucana25 13:51, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Vote
For
- --Tucana25 22:17, 1 January 2007 (EST)
- --Dayd 21:27, 2 January 2007 (EST)
- --Finisterre 13:56, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Against
- --TomFoolery 12:59, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Abstain
- chuck 12:22, 3 January 2007 (EST) (Section 2.c is incoherent to me)
