Talk:332 - Revision history

Dayd at 18:48, 29 November 2006

Dayd — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:48:32 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 29 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->		<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->
-		+	I declare this proposal carried --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 13:48, 29 November 2006 (EST)
	<!--END INSTRUCTIONS-->		<!--END INSTRUCTIONS-->

Applejuicefool: /* For */

Applejuicefool — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:18:54 GMT

For

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:18, 28 November 2006
Line 32:		Line 32:
	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)
	#--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:50, 27 November 2006 (EST)		#--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:50, 27 November 2006 (EST)
		+	# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST); (If we need to make a rule or amendment to prevent abuse by inactives, we can do that. Currently, in order to take advantage of this loophole, a player would have to go inactive (no voting or debate for 14 days), and then refrain from voting, and then when they come back, they get 1/2 vote. A pretty big penalty, imo.)
	#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

Tucana25: /* For */

Tucana25 — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:50:41 GMT

For

←Older revision		Revision as of 00:50, 28 November 2006
Line 31:		Line 31:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)
		+	#--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:50, 27 November 2006 (EST)
	#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />		<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br />
		+
	=== Against ===		=== Against ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]

TomFoolery: /* Against */

TomFoolery — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:12:14 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 27 November 2006
Line 36:		Line 36:
	=== Against ===		=== Against ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
		+	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 11:12, 27 November 2006 (EST)
	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

TomFoolery: /* Debate */

TomFoolery — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:11:49 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, 27 November 2006
Line 23:		Line 23:
	I agree with Shivan. 3 would be a good number. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)		I agree with Shivan. 3 would be a good number. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)

-	You don't mention inactive players. By [[308]] any player can propose a rule change. So an inactive player can propose an infinite number of rule changes provided that they do not vote and make themselves active again by [[314]]. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 11:09, 27 November 2006 (EST)	+	You don't mention inactive players. By [[308]] any player can propose a rule change. So an inactive player can propose an infinite number of rule changes provided that they do not vote and make themselves active again by [[314]]. Since you have voted on this proposal, it cannot be modified, per [[303]], therefore I must vote against.--[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 11:09, 27 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

TomFoolery: /* Debate */

TomFoolery — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:09:48 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 27 November 2006
Line 22:		Line 22:

	I agree with Shivan. 3 would be a good number. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)		I agree with Shivan. 3 would be a good number. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	You don't mention inactive players. By [[308]] any player can propose a rule change. So an inactive player can propose an infinite number of rule changes provided that they do not vote and make themselves active again by [[314]]. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 11:09, 27 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Dayd at 16:06, 27 November 2006

Dayd — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:06:50 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 27 November 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:

	This proposal is to limit the ammout of proposals to help from overwhelming Players. Also it is to encourage quality over quantity in proposals. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 15:43, 25 November 2006 (EST)		This proposal is to limit the ammout of proposals to help from overwhelming Players. Also it is to encourage quality over quantity in proposals. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 15:43, 25 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	I have changed it from 2 to 3 and will be bring it to an immediate vote. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)

	== Debate ==		== Debate ==
Line 26:		Line 28:
	=== For ===		=== For ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
-	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->	+	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)
		+	#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

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

Applejuicefool: /* Debate */

Applejuicefool — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:39:29 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 27 November 2006
Line 18:		Line 18:
	<br>		<br>
	If there must be a limit, let is be more. At least 3.--[[User:Shivan\|Shivan]] 07:31, 27 November 2006 (EST)		If there must be a limit, let is be more. At least 3.--[[User:Shivan\|Shivan]] 07:31, 27 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	I agree with Shivan. 3 would be a good number. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Shivan: /* Debate */

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:31:01 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 27 November 2006
Line 15:		Line 15:

	This rule would be better after we have more players. Right now, it is not hard to stay on top of the proposals out there, and if we limit the number of proposals a player may have, we will drive away those players that like to remain very active. I certainly wouldn't want to play a game that would limit my activity. If you think a proposal is of poor quality, simply vote "against" it. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 07:55, 26 November 2006 (EST)		This rule would be better after we have more players. Right now, it is not hard to stay on top of the proposals out there, and if we limit the number of proposals a player may have, we will drive away those players that like to remain very active. I certainly wouldn't want to play a game that would limit my activity. If you think a proposal is of poor quality, simply vote "against" it. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 07:55, 26 November 2006 (EST)
		+	<br>
		+	<br>
		+	If there must be a limit, let is be more. At least 3.--[[User:Shivan\|Shivan]] 07:31, 27 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

TomFoolery: /* Debate */

TomFoolery — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:55:08 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 12:55, 26 November 2006
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I am for it. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 00:01, 26 November 2006 (EST)		I am for it. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 00:01, 26 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	This rule would be better after we have more players. Right now, it is not hard to stay on top of the proposals out there, and if we limit the number of proposals a player may have, we will drive away those players that like to remain very active. I certainly wouldn't want to play a game that would limit my activity. If you think a proposal is of poor quality, simply vote "against" it. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 07:55, 26 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->