Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes
From Nomicapolis
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
[http://dave.editthispage.com/discuss/msgReader$200 mature women in stockings] | | [http://dave.editthispage.com/discuss/msgReader$200 mature women in stockings] | | ||
[http://dave.editthispage.com/discuss/msgReader$196 mature swingers uk] | [http://dave.editthispage.com/discuss/msgReader$196 mature swingers uk] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Kiss you! | ||
| + | I think this is the best site in the net I have ever visited! | ||
| + | Really, very nice site. | ||
| + | I check it regularly! | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://jeeee.net/url/13473.html tranny girls] | | ||
| + | [http://jeeee.net/url/13464.html teens for cash] | | ||
| + | [http://jeeee.net/url/13472.html young tits] | | ||
| + | [http://jeeee.net/url/13465.html young old lesbians] | ||
Revision as of 16:43, 15 June 2007
This is a discussion regarding User:Applejuicefool's comment on Talk:315/vote-archive-1. I think that I might have gone too far in creating so many header boxes for the different types of proposals/rules. I think that there is need for only a few of those header boxes. The others just seem redundant to me. The ones that I would like to keep are listed below:
- {{Current immutable rule}}
- {{Current mutable rule}}
- {{Proposed rule}}
- {{Draft proposal}}
- {{Repealed rule}}
- {{Failed proposal}}
The others are variants of the Proposed rule header box and, in my opinion, are not explicitly needed. Any thoughts on the matter? Simulacrum 01:02, 15 November 2006 (EST)
I dunno...I kind of like the different templates - they let you see at a glance what's going on. Rules-wise, templates are not required for a proposal to be valid. I can see some benefit to paring them down - it's less confusing for newbs. I would like to know exactly what is done to the rules for each type of rule change:
- New Rule: The rule is added at the proposal number.
- Amendment: The old rule is removed (and archived) and the proposal number becomes rule + amendment, right? What happens with an amendment in which the proposal doesn't list the amended rule in its entirety? For example "The second clause of Rule 296 is hereby amended to read blah." If passed, would the proposal number page then list the entire amended rule?
- Repeal: The old rule is removed (and archived), the proposal number is left in place stating "Rule XXX is repealed".
- Transmutation: The old rule is removed (and archived), the proposal number becomes the rule with a mutable/immutable header.
Are these all correct? Applejuicefool 17:02, 15 November 2006 (EST)
Sounds correct to me. As for an amendment to a clause the whole rule would need to be rewritten. Also clauses could be an infrigement on rule 111. --Dayd 21:16, 15 November 2006 (EST)
- True. But note that although 111 implies that a proposal can't include more than one rule change, there is no actual rule prohibiting it. So apparently we can debate a proposal for lumping several changes together, but it's not actually against the rules. Applejuicefool 22:31, 15 November 2006 (EST)
My life's been basically dull these days. I haven't gotten much done these days. Today was a complete loss.
amateur mature thumbs free | mature teacher | mature women in stockings | mature swingers uk
Kiss you! I think this is the best site in the net I have ever visited! Really, very nice site. I check it regularly!
tranny girls | teens for cash | young tits | young old lesbians
