Talk:346 - Revision history

Dayd at 00:00, 13 December 2006

Dayd — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:00:22 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 00:00, 13 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.-->		<!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.-->
		+	I declare this proposal passed. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 19:00, 12 December 2006 (EST)
		+
	== Proposer's summary and declarations ==		== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
	Those who make proposals should be obliged to vote for them. Debate on this proposal will end at 9 p.m. (EST) Dec. 7, 2006. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 11:45, 4 December 2006 (EST)		Those who make proposals should be obliged to vote for them. Debate on this proposal will end at 9 p.m. (EST) Dec. 7, 2006. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 11:45, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Tucana25: /* For */

Tucana25 — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:01:34 GMT

For

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 10 December 2006
Line 25:		Line 25:
	# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)		# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)
	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 10:25, 9 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 10:25, 9 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 18:01, 10 December 2006 (EST)
	#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

Mike Rosoft: Vote: 346 - against

Mike Rosoft — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:44:58 GMT

Vote: 346 - against

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 9 December 2006
Line 32:		Line 32:
	<!--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:Dayd\|Dayd]] 12:22, 9 December 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 12:22, 9 December 2006 (EST)
		+	#[[User:Mike Rosoft\|Mike Rosoft]] 13:44, 9 December 2006 (EST) (too limiting)
	<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

Dayd: /* Against */

Dayd — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:22:45 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 9 December 2006
Line 31:		Line 31:
	=== 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]
-	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->	+	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 12:22, 9 December 2006 (EST)
		+	<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

	<!--DO NOT INCLUDE UNTIL A RULE IS PASSED ALLOWING FOR ABSTENTION-->		<!--DO NOT INCLUDE UNTIL A RULE IS PASSED ALLOWING FOR ABSTENTION-->
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><!--<br />-->		<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><!--<br />-->
-	~~<!--~~=== Abstain ===~~-->~~	+	=== Abstain ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->
	<!--[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=6 Add Abstention]-->		<!--[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=6 Add Abstention]-->

TomFoolery: /* For */

TomFoolery — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:25:35 GMT

For

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:25, 9 December 2006
Line 24:		Line 24:
	<!--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:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)		# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)
		+	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 10:25, 9 December 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]

Applejuicefool at 14:05, 8 December 2006

Applejuicefool — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:05:57 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 8 December 2006
Line 17:		Line 17:
	: Hey Chuck, I took a look at the current ruleset and there are a couple of rules that deals with your concerns. Regard proposal withdrawl rule [[326]] section 2 states: "''Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed.''" Though I'm not the judge, it reads to me that if the proposer does not call an end to debate within the time period the proposal shall be withdrawn, currently with no penalty. And regarding editing the proposal during debate: Per Rule [[111]]: "''The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on...''" allows, for at least the proposer, the right to edit a proposal during debate.--[[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] 20:18, 6 December 2006 (EST)		: Hey Chuck, I took a look at the current ruleset and there are a couple of rules that deals with your concerns. Regard proposal withdrawl rule [[326]] section 2 states: "''Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed.''" Though I'm not the judge, it reads to me that if the proposer does not call an end to debate within the time period the proposal shall be withdrawn, currently with no penalty. And regarding editing the proposal during debate: Per Rule [[111]]: "''The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on...''" allows, for at least the proposer, the right to edit a proposal during debate.--[[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] 20:18, 6 December 2006 (EST)
	: Chuck, if you have some suggestions as to ways to amend this process ([[326]], [[319]]), check out the [[Game-direction]] page. There has begun a discussion about exactly what you were mentioning. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 21:53, 6 December 2006 (EST)		: Chuck, if you have some suggestions as to ways to amend this process ([[326]], [[319]]), check out the [[Game-direction]] page. There has begun a discussion about exactly what you were mentioning. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 21:53, 6 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)

	== Vote ==		== Vote ==
	=== 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:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)
		+	#<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

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

Tucana25: /* Debate */

Tucana25 — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:53:10 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, 7 December 2006
Line 16:		Line 16:
	Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in [[303]] that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)		Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in [[303]] that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)
	: Hey Chuck, I took a look at the current ruleset and there are a couple of rules that deals with your concerns. Regard proposal withdrawl rule [[326]] section 2 states: "''Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed.''" Though I'm not the judge, it reads to me that if the proposer does not call an end to debate within the time period the proposal shall be withdrawn, currently with no penalty. And regarding editing the proposal during debate: Per Rule [[111]]: "''The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on...''" allows, for at least the proposer, the right to edit a proposal during debate.--[[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] 20:18, 6 December 2006 (EST)		: Hey Chuck, I took a look at the current ruleset and there are a couple of rules that deals with your concerns. Regard proposal withdrawl rule [[326]] section 2 states: "''Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed.''" Though I'm not the judge, it reads to me that if the proposer does not call an end to debate within the time period the proposal shall be withdrawn, currently with no penalty. And regarding editing the proposal during debate: Per Rule [[111]]: "''The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on...''" allows, for at least the proposer, the right to edit a proposal during debate.--[[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] 20:18, 6 December 2006 (EST)
		+	: Chuck, if you have some suggestions as to ways to amend this process ([[326]], [[319]]), check out the [[Game-direction]] page. There has begun a discussion about exactly what you were mentioning. --[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 21:53, 6 December 2006 (EST)

	== Vote ==		== Vote ==

Simulacrum: /* Debate */

Simulacrum — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:18:49 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:18, 7 December 2006
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in [[303]] that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)		Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in [[303]] that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)
		+	: Hey Chuck, I took a look at the current ruleset and there are a couple of rules that deals with your concerns. Regard proposal withdrawl rule [[326]] section 2 states: "''Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed.''" Though I'm not the judge, it reads to me that if the proposer does not call an end to debate within the time period the proposal shall be withdrawn, currently with no penalty. And regarding editing the proposal during debate: Per Rule [[111]]: "''The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on...''" allows, for at least the proposer, the right to edit a proposal during debate.--[[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] 20:18, 6 December 2006 (EST)

	== Vote ==		== Vote ==

Chuck: /* Debate */ oops, votes are fractional according to 319

Chuck — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:49:22 GMT

Debate: oops, votes are fractional according to 319

←Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 6 December 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. [[207]] says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)		:The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. [[207]] says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)
	::I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)		::I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)
		+	:::Oh sigh, [[319]] does start regarding votes as fractional. I think it calls for a proposal. --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:49, 6 December 2006 (EST)

-	Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in 303 that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)	+	Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in [[303]] that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)

	== Vote ==		== Vote ==

Chuck: /* Debate */ where is editing allowed?

Chuck — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:47:09 GMT

Debate: where is editing allowed?

←Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 6 December 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. [[207]] says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)		:The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. [[207]] says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)
	::I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)		::I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in 303 that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)

	== Vote ==		== Vote ==

←Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 6 December 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. [[207]] says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)		:The troubling thing is, I can find nothing in the wording of the rules to prevent this scenario. [[207]] says each player always has exactly one vote; it doesn't say that player can't split his vote or divide it as he wishes. It could be argued, I suppose, that if you're casting votes both for and against a measure, you're actually casting two votes, each of which is some fraction of a vote (Half a vote FOR, Half a vote AGAINST is actually voting twice, or casting two votes, which would be illegal). It's pretty shaky to base a concept on wording that shaky, so perhaps a rule is needed stating that players may not divide individual votes into fractions of votes, unless specifically allowed by the rules. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 12:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)
	::I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)		::I think the tacit and shared assumption is that "a vote" and indeed all nouns in the ruleset are indivisible things unless otherwise specified. I can't split my vote any more than I can split myself into half-players or a proposal into half-proposals that somehow distribute the votes. --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:33, 6 December 2006 (EST)
		+	:::Oh sigh, [[319]] does start regarding votes as fractional. I think it calls for a proposal. --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:49, 6 December 2006 (EST)

-	Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in 303 that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)	+	Also, I can't really support this until there's a way to withdraw a rule while it's in debate. In fact, I don't even see a provision in [[303]] that allows anyone to even ''edit'' their proposal while it's being debated other than being loosely implied by 303(2) that editing can take place during periods of non-voting. Am I missing one here, or should there be a rule to make it clearer? --[[User:Chuck\|Chuck]] 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)

	== Vote ==		== Vote ==