Talk:363

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 21:04, 9 January 2007 (view source) Tucana25 (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff		Current revision as of 15:44, 10 May 2007 (view source) Wooble (Talk | contribs) (repeal info)
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	This rule was repealed by [[387]].
		+
	<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->		<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->

---

Current revision as of 15:44, 10 May 2007

This rule was repealed by 387.

Proposed by: --Finisterre 05:31, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Contents 1 Proposer's summary and declarations 2 Debate 3 Vote 3.1 For 3.2 Against 3.3 Abstain

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

Add comments

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)

Yeah, I get the impression the judge does have somewhat arbitrary power.--Finisterre 16:38, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Vote

Debate is now closed; time to vote --Finisterre 05:44, 5 January 2007 (EST)

I declare this proposal passed. --Tucana25 16:04, 9 January 2007 (EST)

For

Add FOR vote

1. --Finisterre 05:44, 5 January 2007 (EST)
2. --Tucana25 09:33, 5 January 2007 (EST)
3. Applejuicefool 12:28, 5 January 2007 (EST)
4. chuck 13:19, 5 January 2007 (EST)
5. --Dayd 11:45, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

Abstain

Add Abstention