Talk:376
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
(→Debate) |
(explain repeal) |
||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | This rule was repealed by [[381]] | ||
| + | |||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| + | I declare this proposal passed --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 07:50, 16 February 2007 (EST) | ||
Proposed by: [[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 10:01, 6 February 2007 (EST) | Proposed by: [[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 10:01, 6 February 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
Current revision as of 23:57, 25 April 2007
This rule was repealed by 381
I declare this proposal passed --Dayd 07:50, 16 February 2007 (EST)
Proposed by: Dayd 10:01, 6 February 2007 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Debate will end 12:00, 13 February 2007 (EST)
This proposal is for the appointment of Canton leaders. Eventually I would like Cantons to have more of a purpose and this will allow a Player to control individual Canton's purposes. --Dayd 10:04, 6 February 2007 (EST)
Debate
i like this idea...i assume that we will need to develop some sort of connection between performance as head of canton with popularity. Also, do we want to reserve the center canton as a 'government' area that will not have a titled 'head'? --Tucana25 05:18, 7 February 2007 (EST)
- At the moment I am still seeing the Center canton as just another canton, just less populous. So I don't think it really needs to be reserved. Perhaps over the evolution of the Cantons it will become small and area which will end up making into a government center or possibly something else. --Dayd 09:39, 7 February 2007 (EST)
- Well lets do it then...--Tucana25 21:05, 7 February 2007 (EST)
- Good stuff. Glad I didn't miss a major coup. Sorry. Good to be back online. --Finisterre 09:29, 8 February 2007 (EST)
- Well lets do it then...--Tucana25 21:05, 7 February 2007 (EST)
- Well if there aren't any problems with this I'm going to give it another day and then put it to a vote. --Dayd 14:11, 8 February 2007 (EST)
- Theoretically, we could close debate and pass this since it has reached enough votes to pass...however, i thought we'd give Fin a day or so to get his points/pop... --Tucana25 19:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)
- We have to wait 48 hours before we close voting per 372 or till Fin votes as then everyone who can vote has. --Dayd 08:00, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- In the next sentance, if a proposal gains enough votes to pass (which in this case is 2) voting may also be closed then. At least, that was my intent...i realize now that it may not be totally clear...so...i don't know... --Tucana25 18:58, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- We have to wait 48 hours before we close voting per 372 or till Fin votes as then everyone who can vote has. --Dayd 08:00, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- Theoretically, we could close debate and pass this since it has reached enough votes to pass...however, i thought we'd give Fin a day or so to get his points/pop... --Tucana25 19:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Dayd 09:03, 13 February 2007 (EST)
For
Against
Abstain
