Talk:337 - Revision history

Applejuicefool at 14:15, 8 December 2006

Applejuicefool — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:15:43 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:15, 8 December 2006
Line 70:		Line 70:
	== Vote ==		== Vote ==
	Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 18:06, 3 December 2006 (EST)		Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 18:06, 3 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	I hereby declare this proposal failed, as it has been more than 24 hours since the last vote was cast and it has more AGAINST votes than FOR votes. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:15, 8 December 2006 (EST)
	=== For ===		=== For ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=8 Add FOR vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=8 Add FOR vote]

Chuck: /* Against */

Chuck — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:43:04 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 6 December 2006
Line 81:		Line 81:
	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 19:14, 3 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 19:14, 3 December 2006 (EST)
	# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:58, 4 December 2006 (EST)		# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:58, 4 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# [[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 14:43, 6 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		<!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

Tucana25: /* Debate */

Tucana25 — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:49:46 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, 4 December 2006
Line 38:		Line 38:

	I don't know if the wording is any better now. Declaring inactive users unregistered suggests they shouldn't have the chance to cast a half vote. Also, i realized today that there is no rule preventing active players from having a score in the negative numbers (AJF does right now). So, perhaps that could be left out and the negative issue can be decided later. I still don't like the 1/2 vote thing because the likely result is that that result would count as a full vote (3.5-3 is just as good as 4-3 in a vote). The only time a 1/2 vote would have any impact would be if 2 inactive players both voted for or against a proposal. That seems extremely unlikely. The more i think about it, the more i'm sure i don't like this proposal. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 20:06, 1 December 2006 (EST)		I don't know if the wording is any better now. Declaring inactive users unregistered suggests they shouldn't have the chance to cast a half vote. Also, i realized today that there is no rule preventing active players from having a score in the negative numbers (AJF does right now). So, perhaps that could be left out and the negative issue can be decided later. I still don't like the 1/2 vote thing because the likely result is that that result would count as a full vote (3.5-3 is just as good as 4-3 in a vote). The only time a 1/2 vote would have any impact would be if 2 inactive players both voted for or against a proposal. That seems extremely unlikely. The more i think about it, the more i'm sure i don't like this proposal. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 20:06, 1 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	The description of this Proposal should be edited on the "ANNOUNCEMENTS" on the main page. The description is now completely opposite of what this Proposal actually proposes. I don't know if any player (other than the proposee) can legally change that, or at least if it is in good form. (I have dustin hoffman in my head saying 'bad foam pita'). Also, the text of the proposal mentions point 'lose,' which I suspect was intended to mean point 'loss.' Now that it is up for a vote, i don't know if that is editable either, but thought I'd bring it up. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 13:49, 4 December 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Applejuicefool: /* Against */

Applejuicefool — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:58:07 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 4 December 2006
Line 78:		Line 78:
	# --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 18:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 18:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)
	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 19:14, 3 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 19:14, 3 December 2006 (EST)
-	# <!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->	+	# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:58, 4 December 2006 (EST)
		+	<!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

TomFoolery: /* Against */

TomFoolery — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:14:42 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 4 December 2006
Line 77:		Line 77:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=9 Add AGAINST vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=9 Add AGAINST vote]
	# --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 18:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 18:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 19:14, 3 December 2006 (EST)
	# <!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

Tucana25 at 23:33, 3 December 2006

Tucana25 — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:33:36 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 3 December 2006
Line 45:		Line 45:
	If this is considered a proper proposal of a rule, then the pope DOES poop in the woods. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:14, 2 December 2006 (EST)		If this is considered a proper proposal of a rule, then the pope DOES poop in the woods. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:14, 2 December 2006 (EST)
	:OK...i just realized this is not improper...i missed my window to change my vote though, i didn't check the dates and thought we were talking about proposal [[339]], which is proposed in the same spirit, but copies rule [[326]] verbatim instead of giving a date. Considering the ruling already given by the Judge,as well as the vote already being up for proposal, i won't bother going through this again. By the way, does the pope poop in the woods? --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:49, 2 December 2006 (EST)		:OK...i just realized this is not improper...i missed my window to change my vote though, i didn't check the dates and thought we were talking about proposal [[339]], which is proposed in the same spirit, but copies rule [[326]] verbatim instead of giving a date. Considering the ruling already given by the Judge,as well as the vote already being up for proposal, i won't bother going through this again. By the way, does the pope poop in the woods? --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:49, 2 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Per Rule [[306]].2.D: When a claim of improper proposal passes or fails, the claimant and voters in the claim action gain or lose half as many points as they would have had the claim been a proposal vote with a number equal to the proposal number of the proposal in question. Given rule [[333]], does anyone have any opinion on how points should be distributed? --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 18:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)
		+
	===Vote on Improper Proposal===		===Vote on Improper Proposal===
	==== For (the proposal IS improper) ====		==== For (the proposal IS improper) ====
Line 73:		Line 76:
	=== Against ===		=== Against ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=9 Add AGAINST vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=9 Add AGAINST vote]
		+	# --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 18:33, 3 December 2006 (EST)
	# <!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

Dayd at 23:06, 3 December 2006

Dayd — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:06:59 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 3 December 2006
Line 64:		Line 64:

	== Vote ==		== Vote ==
		+	Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 18:06, 3 December 2006 (EST)
	=== For ===		=== For ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=8 Add FOR vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=8 Add FOR vote]
		+	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 18:06, 3 December 2006 (EST)
	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

Line 71:		Line 73:
	=== Against ===		=== Against ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=9 Add AGAINST vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=9 Add AGAINST vote]
-	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->	+	# <!--DO NOT ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

Dayd: /* Proposer's summary and declarations */

Dayd — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:44:21 GMT

Proposer's summary and declarations

←Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 3 December 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	== Proposer's summary and declarations ==		== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
	[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary]		[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary]
-	~~Alright this was a major change from~~ the ~~previous~~ proposal~~, but still in line~~ with the ~~old.~~ ~~Regarding~~ inactive ~~players~~ and ~~their privledges~~. ~~Debate will end for this~~ proposal at a ~~later date~~ and ~~time~~. --~~[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 14:37, 29 November 2006~~ (~~EST~~)	+	Ok here is the reason for the proposal:
-	The major point of the proposal is to fix the loophole of inactive players being allowed to make infinite proposals. Since only active players are limited to 3. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 19:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)	+	*Players that are declared inactive do not count as registered voters.
		+	**This is work with [[326]] in regards to "it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted"
		+	*A player who is currently declared inactive, and therefore an unregistered voter, shall not recieve a vote until they propose a proposal.
		+	**This is to propose a real penalty since 1/2 isn't really anything as pointed out. I thought about making it no vote except on your proposal(s) until you pass a proposal.
		+	*When a player is declared inactive he or she loses 10 points (Gains 10 negative points). This point lose cannot allow the player to have any more points less than 0 points than the player may already have.
		+	**This is to help prevent player that would end up -10 for going inactive from leaving and then immediately rejoining to have 0 points. If you have less then 0 points i.e. -20 then having -30 won't stop you from restarting either.
		+	*When a player is declared inactive the census page shall be edited to account for the change in status.
		+	**Standard house keeping here.
		+	*Inactive players are allowed to make one (1) rule proposal.
		+	**To fix the loophole of infinite proposals for inactive players.
		+	The major point of the proposal is to fix the loophole of inactive players being allowed to make infinite proposals. Since only active players are limited to 3. Also has fixed some other issues that have arisen. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 22:44, 2 December 2006 (EST)

	== Debate ==		== Debate ==

Tucana25 at 00:49, 3 December 2006

Tucana25 — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:49:58 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 00:49, 3 December 2006
Line 33:		Line 33:
	[[326]] states that a player making a proposal must set a debate limit for that proposal. The limit of "a later date and time" does not meet the requirements of [[326]]. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 08:09, 2 December 2006 (EST)		[[326]] states that a player making a proposal must set a debate limit for that proposal. The limit of "a later date and time" does not meet the requirements of [[326]]. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 08:09, 2 December 2006 (EST)

-	If this is considered a proper proposal of a rule, then the pope DOES poop in the woods. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:14, 2 December 2006 (EST)	+	If this is considered a proper proposal of a rule, then the pope DOES poop in the woods. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:14, 2 December 2006 (EST)
		+	:OK...i just realized this is not improper...i missed my window to change my vote though, i didn't check the dates and thought we were talking about proposal [[339]], which is proposed in the same spirit, but copies rule [[326]] verbatim instead of giving a date. Considering the ruling already given by the Judge,as well as the vote already being up for proposal, i won't bother going through this again. By the way, does the pope poop in the woods? --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 19:49, 2 December 2006 (EST)
	===Vote on Improper Proposal===		===Vote on Improper Proposal===
	==== For (the proposal IS improper) ====		==== For (the proposal IS improper) ====

TomFoolery: /* Against (the proposal IS NOT improper) */

TomFoolery — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:41:19 GMT

Against (the proposal IS NOT improper)

←Older revision		Revision as of 00:41, 3 December 2006
Line 47:		Line 47:
	# --[[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] 14:30, 2 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] 14:30, 2 December 2006 (EST)
	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 16:37, 2 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 16:37, 2 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 19:41, 2 December 2006 (EST) (I find Applejuicefool's judgment to be correct.)
	<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->