Talk:377
From Nomicapolis
(explain repeal) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | This rule was repealed by [[383]]. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 21:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
This proposal has been passed. [[User:Samoht|Samoht]] 01:17, 11 March 2007 (EST) | This proposal has been passed. [[User:Samoht|Samoht]] 01:17, 11 March 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| Line 33: | Line 35: | ||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | ||
| + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:11, 8 March 2007 (EST) (for reasons stated above) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
| - | + | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
Current revision as of 01:20, 29 April 2007
This rule was repealed by 383. Wooble 21:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
This proposal has been passed. Samoht 01:17, 11 March 2007 (EST)
Proposed by: [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 12:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
I suggest that debate run until 7 March 2007 at Noon EST. Wooble 12:31, 1 March 2007 (EST)
Debate
I thinking I'm going to sit the fence on this one. I think that both positions are that which do not overlap. I think that 1 person probably could do both at the same time. Likewise I think the Scorekeeper position is more valuable than the Judge, but this is only due to the fact that the SK is the "glue" that holds this place together. I'd hate to see the Judge appoint someone that wouldn't be able to do that. And as of now I do think any really wants to be SK. It's a big responsiblity and has no perks or rewards. --Dayd 12:11, 2 March 2007 (EST)
The only way that holding both positions could be profitable is if you made a scoring "error" (accidently of course...) and then had a request for judgement, which you could then rule against. Then you'd have to hope that nobody pays attention and boots you out of office. I would imagine that would put a tarnish on your reputation and minimize your chances of further election. So...in essence, I'm saying that i think its a good idea to discourage holding both offices, but not preventing it if all else fails. So...maybe change the second sentence to say something like" ...The only way a player may hold both offices is if the same player is elected judge and elected scorekeeper with no contarian votes...or however you want to phrase it...do that and i think i would vote for it. Also...with our little mini-blizzard up here in minneapolis, i totally forgot it was the first of the month...i've been checking in pretty much every day, except for the last 4 when I was outside enjoying winter, so...thanks for the activity Woo. --Tucana25 00:40, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. Samoht
For
Against
- --Tucana25 23:11, 8 March 2007 (EST) (for reasons stated above)
Abstain
