Talk:377 - Revision history

Wooble: explain repeal

2007-04-29T01:20:05Z

explain repeal

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:20, 29 April 2007
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		+	This rule was repealed by [[383]].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-->

Wooble: (fixing odd formatting)

2007-03-27T13:02:00Z

(fixing odd formatting)

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:02, 27 March 2007
Line 33:		Line 33:
	=== 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-->
-	~~--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 23:11, 8 March 2007 (EST) (for reasons stated above)~~	+

	<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />		<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />

Samoht at 06:17, 11 March 2007

2007-03-11T06:17:33Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:17, 11 March 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	This proposal has been passed. [[User:Samoht\|Samoht]] 01:17, 11 March 2007 (EST)
	<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->		<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->
-		+
	Proposed by: <nowiki>[[User:Wooble\|Wooble]] 12:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)</nowiki>		Proposed by: <nowiki>[[User:Wooble\|Wooble]] 12:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)</nowiki>

Tucana25: /* Against */

2007-03-09T04:11:49Z

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:11, 9 March 2007
Line 33:		Line 33:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|5\|Add AGAINST vote}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|5\|Add AGAINST vote}}
	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->
		+	--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 23:11, 8 March 2007 (EST) (for reasons stated above)

	<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />		<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />
		+
	=== Abstain ===		=== Abstain ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|6\|Add Abstention}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|6\|Add Abstention}}

Wooble: /* For */ voting FOR

2007-03-08T17:52:03Z

For: voting FOR

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 8 March 2007
Line 25:		Line 25:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|4\|Add FOR vote}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|4\|Add FOR vote}}
	# [[User:Samoht\|Samoht]] 15:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)		# [[User:Samoht\|Samoht]] 15:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
		+	# [[User:Wooble\|Wooble]] 12:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)
	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

Samoht: /* For */

2007-03-07T20:41:21Z

For

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:41, 7 March 2007
Line 24:		Line 24:
	=== For ===		=== For ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|4\|Add FOR vote}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|4\|Add FOR vote}}
-	# [[User:Samoht\|Samoht]]	+	# [[User:Samoht\|Samoht]] 15:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

Samoht: /* For */

2007-03-07T20:37:40Z

For

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 7 March 2007
Line 24:		Line 24:
	=== For ===		=== For ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|4\|Add FOR vote}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|4\|Add FOR vote}}
-	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->	+	# [[User:Samoht\|Samoht]]
		+	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />		<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />
		+
	=== Against ===		=== Against ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|5\|Add AGAINST vote}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|5\|Add AGAINST vote}}

Samoht at 20:36, 7 March 2007

2007-03-07T20:36:22Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:36, 7 March 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:

	== Vote ==		== Vote ==
		+	Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Samoht\|Samoht]]
	=== For ===		=== For ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|4\|Add FOR vote}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|4\|Add FOR vote}}

Tucana25: /* Debate */

2007-03-05T05:40:15Z

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:40, 5 March 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->		<!--BEGIN 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. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 12:11, 2 March 2007 (EST)		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. --[[User:Dayd\|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. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 00:40, 5 March 2007 (EST)
		+
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Dayd: /* Debate */

2007-03-02T17:11:18Z

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 2 March 2007
Line 13:		Line 13:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|2\|Add comments}}		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection\|2\|Add comments}}
	<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->		<!--BEGIN 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. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 12:11, 2 March 2007 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->