Talk:363
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
Finisterre (Talk | contribs) |
(good catch ;)) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | I never liked rule 335 in the first place, since it gives judges rather arbitrary power. At least this version could actually work however, so that's a bonus. [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 12:14, 28 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 17:14, 28 December 2006
Proposed by: --Finisterre 05:31, 28 December 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary It doesn't make sense that the accuser is allowed to vote in what needs to be a unanimous decision since they will inevitably vote AGAINST and prevent the unanimous vote. Also, there seems to be no reason to exclude the accused, since by implication they think they're not guilty.
Debate for this proposal shall end Jan 5, 2007 at 00:01.
Debate
I never liked rule 335 in the first place, since it gives judges rather arbitrary power. At least this version could actually work however, so that's a bonus. chuck 12:14, 28 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
Abstain
