Talk:325
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
"Any new rule that negates a previous rule is considered a repeal of the previous rule, and as such, requires a super-majority to pass." Doesn't an amendment to a rule in fact nagate a pervious rule as the previous rule is repealed and the new amendment takes the new number. Also I think that you intend a "Simple Majority" and not just a "Majority" to be needed to amend or propose new rules. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:29, 23 November 2006 (EST) | "Any new rule that negates a previous rule is considered a repeal of the previous rule, and as such, requires a super-majority to pass." Doesn't an amendment to a rule in fact nagate a pervious rule as the previous rule is repealed and the new amendment takes the new number. Also I think that you intend a "Simple Majority" and not just a "Majority" to be needed to amend or propose new rules. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:29, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | What does "negate" mean in this context? Does it mean "cause to be deleted from the current ruleset?" What if I come up with a new rule that says "Each player has one vote for each letter in his or her user name, as listed on the census. This rule takes precedence over [[207]]." Would my new rule be considered to "negate" 207? (Hmm...not a bad idea, actually! (lol)) [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 20:47, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 01:47, 24 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
It should be more difficult to repeal a rule than to amend it, or to create a new one. We should endeavor to work within the framework that we create wherever possible, and only to remove a part of that framework when no other options are available.
Debate
Add comments
But will someone not try to find a way to work around it? For example if 55% want the law passed they would create a new law, not repealing it, but rendering it useless or effectless.--Shivan 15:48, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Good Point. Maybe a change to the proposal that eliminates that would be good. --TomFoolery 16:55, 23 November 2006 (EST)
"Any new rule that negates a previous rule is considered a repeal of the previous rule, and as such, requires a super-majority to pass." Doesn't an amendment to a rule in fact nagate a pervious rule as the previous rule is repealed and the new amendment takes the new number. Also I think that you intend a "Simple Majority" and not just a "Majority" to be needed to amend or propose new rules. --Dayd 20:29, 23 November 2006 (EST)
What does "negate" mean in this context? Does it mean "cause to be deleted from the current ruleset?" What if I come up with a new rule that says "Each player has one vote for each letter in his or her user name, as listed on the census. This rule takes precedence over 207." Would my new rule be considered to "negate" 207? (Hmm...not a bad idea, actually! (lol)) Applejuicefool 20:47, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
