Talk:337
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Then inactive would be no change in status, except for the loss of 10 points. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 07:50, 28 November 2006 (EST) | Then inactive would be no change in status, except for the loss of 10 points. [[User:Applejuicefool|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.--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:05, 28 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 14:05, 28 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary This proposal is intended to compliment rule 332, however if 332 is rejected this is still legitimate. Also if there are no active players and no proposals active the game will end due to this rule along with the current ruleset. I mean if no one is playing shouldn't the game end? --Dayd 11:21, 27 November 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)
Vote
For
Against
