Talk:389

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 13:01, 22 May 2007 (view source) 66.41.83.16 (Talk) (→For: my artichokes were good) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 13:03, 22 May 2007 (view source) Tucana25 (Talk | contribs) (→For) Next diff →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		# [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 14:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
	# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 19:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)		# [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 19:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
-	# --[[User:66.41.83.16|66.41.83.16]] 09:01, 22 May 2007 (EDT)	+	# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

---

Revision as of 13:03, 22 May 2007

Proposed by Wooble 11:26, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

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

An attempt to model wartime casualties. I haven't done any detailed analysis to reach the % figures I used, and I'm open to any suggestions. Aggressor nations lose just their soldiers, the bulk of whom are Young Adults with some Adults also serving. Those being attacked just lose citizens evenly, although an attempt to model both defensive combatant losses and collateral damage would probably be a good future refinement. Maybe making casualties proportional to the size of the opponent's population as well. I'd be happy to make refinements to this proposal or let them come through amendments.

I suggest that debate on this proposal run through May 18 at noon EDT. Wooble 11:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate

Add comments

Sure, let's give it a shot. We can always adjust it later. BobTHJ 18:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Vote

Discussion is closed. This proposal must now be voted on BobTHJ 14:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

For

Add FOR vote

1. BobTHJ 14:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
2. Wooble 19:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
3. --Tucana25 09:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

Abstain

Add Abstention