Talk:344
From Nomicapolis
| (7 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| - | + | I declare this proposal failed. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:59, 5 December 2006 (EST) | |
<!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
<!--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.--> | ||
== Proposer's summary and declarations == | == Proposer's summary and declarations == | ||
| - | + | Debate will end for this proposal on Monday December 4, 2006 at 12:01 AM EST. | |
| + | This proposal combines elements from Rules [[314]] and [[319]]. It addresses concerns I have regarding the process of declaring inactive status as well as returning a player to active status. Rule [[111]] seems to suggest that players should avoid combining two or more rule-changes in one amendment, but there are no rules preventing proposals from amending or repealing multiple rules. If anyone can find evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to split this into multiple proposals, but this seemed easier. I have explained my reasoning for proposing these rule changes in other places, but I would be happy to expound upon them if anyone missed them the first time or would prefer I state them here for archiving purposes. Let me know. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:17, 1 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| + | As there seems to be no debate, I will open this to voting. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
| + | Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST) | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | ||
| + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:15, 3 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§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | ||
| - | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:02, 3 December 2006 (EST) (This is the same idea as [[337]]) |
| + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:19, 4 December 2006 (EST); (What Dayd said). | ||
| + | #--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 12:20, 4 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Current revision as of 01:59, 6 December 2006
I declare this proposal failed. --Dayd 20:59, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Debate will end for this proposal on Monday December 4, 2006 at 12:01 AM EST.
This proposal combines elements from Rules 314 and 319. It addresses concerns I have regarding the process of declaring inactive status as well as returning a player to active status. Rule 111 seems to suggest that players should avoid combining two or more rule-changes in one amendment, but there are no rules preventing proposals from amending or repealing multiple rules. If anyone can find evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to split this into multiple proposals, but this seemed easier. I have explained my reasoning for proposing these rule changes in other places, but I would be happy to expound upon them if anyone missed them the first time or would prefer I state them here for archiving purposes. Let me know. --Tucana25 21:17, 1 December 2006 (EST)
Debate
Add comments As there seems to be no debate, I will open this to voting. --Tucana25 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Tucana25 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --Tucana25 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)
- --TomFoolery 19:15, 3 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- --Dayd 18:02, 3 December 2006 (EST) (This is the same idea as 337)
- Applejuicefool 11:19, 4 December 2006 (EST); (What Dayd said).
- --Shivan 12:20, 4 December 2006 (EST)
