Talk:362
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
(→Debate) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| - | + | I declare this proposal passed. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:15, 4 January 2007 (EST) | |
Proposed by: --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:44, 27 December 2006 (EST) | Proposed by: --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:44, 27 December 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=1 Proposer's summary] | [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=1 Proposer's summary] | ||
Debate for this proposal shall end Jan 1, 2007 at 00:01. | Debate for this proposal shall end Jan 1, 2007 at 00:01. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Debate is now over. Please vote. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:25, 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--> | ||
"All players that are not deemed to have 'active' status shall not count against the total number of players for purposes of the quorum." I keep seeing this line everywhere. Can someone please explain why it is there? I want to see a line stating that inactive players are not considered registered voters per [[326]] "If a vote is called, it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted..." Of course I tried this, but no one liked the idea. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:43, 27 December 2006 (EST) | "All players that are not deemed to have 'active' status shall not count against the total number of players for purposes of the quorum." I keep seeing this line everywhere. Can someone please explain why it is there? I want to see a line stating that inactive players are not considered registered voters per [[326]] "If a vote is called, it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted..." Of course I tried this, but no one liked the idea. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:43, 27 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'd like to see inactive players fined something along the lines of a point a week, until they reach a set number and become 'dormant', or 'extinct'. --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 16:17, 30 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | :something like that was already shot down: [[350]]. Of course, I was hoping to connect active status with population change and that was shot down as well, so perhaps i should lay back and see what others come up with. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 11:38, 31 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm opposed to inactive players having to make a proposal to regain active status. [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 13:12, 1 January 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 25: | ||
=== 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:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:25, 1 January 2007 (EST) |
| + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:39, 2 January 2007 (EST) (Even though I liked [[337]] that failed better) | ||
| + | # --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 13:58, 3 January 2007 (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:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:04, 2 January 2007 (EST) |
| - | + | # [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 12:24, 3 January 2007 (EST) (same concern as TomFoolery) | |
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Abstain === | === Abstain === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--> | ||
Current revision as of 23:15, 4 January 2007
I declare this proposal passed. --Dayd 18:15, 4 January 2007 (EST)
Proposed by: --Tucana25 13:44, 27 December 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary Debate for this proposal shall end Jan 1, 2007 at 00:01.
Debate is now over. Please vote. --Tucana25 22:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Debate
Add comments "All players that are not deemed to have 'active' status shall not count against the total number of players for purposes of the quorum." I keep seeing this line everywhere. Can someone please explain why it is there? I want to see a line stating that inactive players are not considered registered voters per 326 "If a vote is called, it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted..." Of course I tried this, but no one liked the idea. --Dayd 21:43, 27 December 2006 (EST)
I'd like to see inactive players fined something along the lines of a point a week, until they reach a set number and become 'dormant', or 'extinct'. --Finisterre 16:17, 30 December 2006 (EST)
- something like that was already shot down: 350. Of course, I was hoping to connect active status with population change and that was shot down as well, so perhaps i should lay back and see what others come up with. --Tucana25 11:38, 31 December 2006 (EST)
I'm opposed to inactive players having to make a proposal to regain active status. TomFoolery 13:12, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Vote
For
- --Tucana25 22:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)
- --Dayd 21:39, 2 January 2007 (EST) (Even though I liked 337 that failed better)
- --Finisterre 13:58, 3 January 2007 (EST)
Against
- --TomFoolery 11:04, 2 January 2007 (EST)
- chuck 12:24, 3 January 2007 (EST) (same concern as TomFoolery)
Abstain
