Talk:389
From Nomicapolis
(Opened for voting, voting For) |
(→For: vote) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | ||
# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT) | # [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | # [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 19:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | ||
Revision as of 23:51, 21 May 2007
Proposed by Wooble 11:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
An attempt to model wartime casualties. I haven't done any detailed analysis to reach the % figures I used, and I'm open to any suggestions. Aggressor nations lose just their soldiers, the bulk of whom are Young Adults with some Adults also serving. Those being attacked just lose citizens evenly, although an attempt to model both defensive combatant losses and collateral damage would probably be a good future refinement. Maybe making casualties proportional to the size of the opponent's population as well. I'd be happy to make refinements to this proposal or let them come through amendments.
I suggest that debate on this proposal run through May 18 at noon EDT. Wooble 11:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Debate
Sure, let's give it a shot. We can always adjust it later. BobTHJ 18:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Vote
Discussion is closed. This proposal must now be voted on BobTHJ 14:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
For
Against
Abstain
