Talk:314/vote-archive-1

From Nomicapolis

< Talk:314(Difference between revisions)
m (Talk:314 moved to Talk:314/vote-archive-1)
 
(15 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
First off welcome to the game.  It's nice to actually see someone else here.  As of right now you and me, Dayd, are the only "currently active" players.  However I am working on that issue.  According to the rules in place it only take to players to actually play so it is workable.
+
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->
 +
I declare this proposal carried --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 00:26, 12 November 2006 (EST)
 +
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS-->
-
As for your proposal I'm not sure I fully support it at the moment. I understand the reason for it, but at the same time know that not everyone is up to par with wiki-code to be able to do it with out edits. As you can attest to your vote on proposal 313. I suppose with practice and actually use it will become second nature, but until then it could penalize those unfamiliar with wiki enough to put them off from actually playing.
+
<!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.-->
 +
== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
 +
Inspired by the the [[Game-direction]] I have started the legislation on inactivity.
 +
This is a rule to deal with inactivity. It merely defines what inactivity is defined as. The 14 days which is the limit of activity is inspired by rule [[313]], which acording to rule 313 14 days is the longest time a debate is allowed to linger. I choose not to add concequences for inactivity as I felt I might break rule [[111]]. Aditionally with the definition of inactivity in this rule and rules for the concequences in later rules, the need for constant ammendment to this rule is avoided.  
 +
--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 12:49, 6 November 2006 (EST)
 +
== Debate ==
 +
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]
 +
<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->
-
--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:08, 6 November 2006 (EST)
+
Rules for declaring inactivity is a good thing.  However at the moment it won't do anything, but put members in a special class.  We can use this to put restricts on this class in the future.  I'd actually like to see this Nomic end up in a "class society" based on activity and points the more of both you have the better off in "society" you are.
 +
--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:06, 7 November 2006 (EST)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
 
 +
I know that is does not do anything, but i would not suggest actual concequences of inactivity as I thought oposition was much more likely. Becuase this rule is basicly just in initial steps, I expect it to be passed quickly and painlessly. Although there are no concequences right now; the next law could include a rule that your voting power is reduced or you do don't count in the Quorum if you are inactive. Basicly I just want to open for up for further legislation.
 +
--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 13:58, 7 November 2006 (EST)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
 
 +
How about if we amend it to include debating on an amendment as well?  Even though I suppose if you haven't voted on an amendment you're probably even less likely to debate one. 
 +
--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:00, 7 November 2006 (EST)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
 
 +
So you want to change it to something like "1. Any player who has not voted on a proposal ''or debated on one'' within the last 14 days shall be declared inactive."
 +
So if you debate on a proposal is it, in means of inactivity, as good as if you had voted on one?
 +
--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 05:30, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
Yes.  I suppose it is a possible somewhere down the line that you might not be able to vote on a particular issue in the event that your voting has been restricted, but you can still be active if you debate issues.  Or just looking at pure activity and it could be that you missed a vote, but were active in the debate.
 +
--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:04, 8 November 2006 (EST)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
I have enacted the change the you suggested. The rule should be ready to vote on about now. Hope I did the change acording to rules.
 +
--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 20:19, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 +
 
 +
<!--END DEBATE-->
 +
 
 +
== Vote ==
 +
=== For ===
 +
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
 +
 
 +
<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->
 +
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:33, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 +
# --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 23:27, 10 November 2006 (EST)
 +
 
 +
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />
 +
 
 +
=== Against ===
 +
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
 +
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->
 +
 
 +
__NOEDITSECTION__

Current revision as of 05:27, 12 November 2006

I declare this proposal carried --Dayd 00:26, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Contents

Proposer's summary and declarations

Inspired by the the Game-direction I have started the legislation on inactivity. This is a rule to deal with inactivity. It merely defines what inactivity is defined as. The 14 days which is the limit of activity is inspired by rule 313, which acording to rule 313 14 days is the longest time a debate is allowed to linger. I choose not to add concequences for inactivity as I felt I might break rule 111. Aditionally with the definition of inactivity in this rule and rules for the concequences in later rules, the need for constant ammendment to this rule is avoided. --Shivan 12:49, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Debate

Add comments

Rules for declaring inactivity is a good thing. However at the moment it won't do anything, but put members in a special class. We can use this to put restricts on this class in the future. I'd actually like to see this Nomic end up in a "class society" based on activity and points the more of both you have the better off in "society" you are. --Dayd 11:06, 7 November 2006 (EST)


I know that is does not do anything, but i would not suggest actual concequences of inactivity as I thought oposition was much more likely. Becuase this rule is basicly just in initial steps, I expect it to be passed quickly and painlessly. Although there are no concequences right now; the next law could include a rule that your voting power is reduced or you do don't count in the Quorum if you are inactive. Basicly I just want to open for up for further legislation. --Shivan 13:58, 7 November 2006 (EST)


How about if we amend it to include debating on an amendment as well? Even though I suppose if you haven't voted on an amendment you're probably even less likely to debate one. --Dayd 22:00, 7 November 2006 (EST)


So you want to change it to something like "1. Any player who has not voted on a proposal or debated on one within the last 14 days shall be declared inactive." So if you debate on a proposal is it, in means of inactivity, as good as if you had voted on one? --Shivan 05:30, 8 November 2006 (EST)

Yes. I suppose it is a possible somewhere down the line that you might not be able to vote on a particular issue in the event that your voting has been restricted, but you can still be active if you debate issues. Or just looking at pure activity and it could be that you missed a vote, but were active in the debate. --Dayd 11:04, 8 November 2006 (EST)

I have enacted the change the you suggested. The rule should be ready to vote on about now. Hope I did the change acording to rules. --Shivan 20:19, 9 November 2006 (EST)


Vote

For

Add FOR vote

  1. --Dayd 21:33, 10 November 2006 (EST)
  2. --Simulacrum 23:27, 10 November 2006 (EST)


Against

Add AGAINST vote


Retrieved from "http://editthis.info/nomicapolis/Talk:314/vote-archive-1"
Personal tools