Talk:363
From Nomicapolis
(→For) |
(repeal info) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | This rule was repealed by [[387]]. | ||
| + | |||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
Debate is now closed; time to vote --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 05:44, 5 January 2007 (EST) | Debate is now closed; time to vote --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 05:44, 5 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I declare this proposal passed. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:04, 9 January 2007 (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] | ||
# --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 05:44, 5 January 2007 (EST) | # --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 05:44, 5 January 2007 (EST) | ||
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:33, 5 January 2007 (EST) | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:33, 5 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| - | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:28, 5 January 2007 (EST)<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:28, 5 January 2007 (EST) |
| + | # [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 13:19, 5 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:45, 6 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
Current revision as of 15:44, 10 May 2007
This rule was repealed by 387.
Proposed by: --Finisterre 05:31, 28 December 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary It doesn't make sense that the accuser is allowed to vote in what needs to be a unanimous decision since they will inevitably vote AGAINST and prevent the unanimous vote. Also, there seems to be no reason to exclude the accused, since by implication they think they're not guilty.
Debate for this proposal shall end Jan 5, 2007 at 00:01.
Debate
I never liked rule 335 in the first place, since it gives judges rather arbitrary power. At least this version could actually work however, so that's a bonus. chuck 12:14, 28 December 2006 (EST)
Yeah, I get the impression the judge does have somewhat arbitrary power.--Finisterre 16:38, 30 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is now closed; time to vote --Finisterre 05:44, 5 January 2007 (EST)
I declare this proposal passed. --Tucana25 16:04, 9 January 2007 (EST)
For
- --Finisterre 05:44, 5 January 2007 (EST)
- --Tucana25 09:33, 5 January 2007 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 12:28, 5 January 2007 (EST)
- chuck 13:19, 5 January 2007 (EST)
- --Dayd 11:45, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Against
Abstain
