Talk:344
From Nomicapolis
(→Proposer's summary and declarations) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<!--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 == | ||
Revision as of 02:17, 2 December 2006
Please substitute this template. To do so add subst: in the template call. This is how it should look typed: {{subst:vote}}
When it is fixed please remove these instructions by editing the page normally.
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
Vote
For
Against
