Talk:337
From Nomicapolis
Simulacrum (Talk | contribs) (→Against (the proposal IS NOT improper)) |
Simulacrum (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
| + | <!-- DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
Revision as of 18:48, 2 December 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
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. --Dayd 14:37, 29 November 2006 (EST) 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. --Dayd 19:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Debate
Add comments I would like to see instead an amendment to 314 limiting inactive players to 1 proposal, with the proviso that making a proposal does NOT remove a player from the inactive list. That way, if they make a proposal, while they're inactive, they still have to suck up their 1/2 vote, whether it's their proposal or not. That way the game can restart if everyone goes inactive. Applejuicefool 00:23, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Couldn't we do away with the 1/2 vote thing since an inactive player is losing points for inactivity. What if a player could resume active status by proposing a new amendment. --Tucana25 02:25, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Then inactive would be no change in status, except for the loss of 10 points. Applejuicefool 07:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)
The change of status would be that an inactive player could not vote at all until making a proposal.--Tucana25 09:05, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Oh, you mean that making a proposal would be the ONLY way back from inactivity. I don't think that's a good idea...if you start forcing people to make proposals, you end up with trash proposals ("The name of the game is now no longer Nomicapolis, but 'Bob.' All proposals must begin with the phrase 'Hail, Bob!'") Applejuicefool 09:28, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Assuming no one else will vote for the amendment you mentioned, they will then have to lose another 10 points. Of course they may already be at zero. Something i just thought of, having a 1/2 vote is not going to be a punishment unless two inactive players vote on the same proposal (one for, one against), a 1/2 vote is just as good as a full vote. Anyway...not saying i will necessarily vote against it, just offering alternatives. --Tucana25 21:41, 29 November 2006 (EST)
I don't really see the point of the proposal. Acording to the definition of inactivity (314) a player can become active by voting on a proposal. So not being able to propose something is a very small pentalty, since you can vote once and then the penalty is gone.--Shivan 00:19, 30 November 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. --Tucana25 20:06, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Improper Proposal
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. --TomFoolery 08:09, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Vote on Improper Proposal
For (the proposal IS improper)
Against (the proposal IS NOT improper)
Vote
For
Against
