Talk:397
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
| (6 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Proposer's summary and declarations == | == Proposer's summary and declarations == | ||
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}} | {{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't like the "wholly void" part; I think it should just be a simple rule of precedence in interpretation, letting the rest of the conflicting rule stand. I don't really like immutable rules anyway. And this is mostly to make myself active again per 362. | ||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| + | Debate closed by [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 11:07, 30 May 2007 (EDT) -- the proposal must now be voted on. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This proposal has failed to gain a unanimous vote. [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 10:34, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 19: | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | ||
| - | + | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | |
| - | + | # [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 11:07, 30 May 2007 (EDT) | |
| + | # [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 12:54, 30 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | #--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:08, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
<!--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}} | ||
| + | # [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 08:48, 31 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Abstain === | === Abstain === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|6|Add Abstention}} | ||
Current revision as of 14:34, 31 May 2007
Proposed by: chuck 11:03, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
I don't like the "wholly void" part; I think it should just be a simple rule of precedence in interpretation, letting the rest of the conflicting rule stand. I don't really like immutable rules anyway. And this is mostly to make myself active again per 362.
Debate
Debate closed by chuck 11:07, 30 May 2007 (EDT) -- the proposal must now be voted on.
This proposal has failed to gain a unanimous vote. chuck 10:34, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Vote
For
Against
- Wooble 08:48, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Abstain
