Talk:325 - Revision history

Simulacrum: /* Against */

Simulacrum — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:43:40 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:43, 28 November 2006
Line 57:		Line 57:
	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)
	# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 00:27, 28 November 2006 (EST); (Sorry, just don't understand the point of this one).		# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 00:27, 28 November 2006 (EST); (Sorry, just don't understand the point of this one).
-	# -- [[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] ~~{{subst~~:~~CURRENTTIME}}~~, ~~{{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}~~ {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)	+	# -- [[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] 09:43, 28 November {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

Simulacrum: /* Against */

Simulacrum — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:43:32 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:43, 28 November 2006
Line 57:		Line 57:
	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)
	# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 00:27, 28 November 2006 (EST); (Sorry, just don't understand the point of this one).		# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 00:27, 28 November 2006 (EST); (Sorry, just don't understand the point of this one).
		+	# -- [[User:Simulacrum\|Simulacrum]] {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

Applejuicefool: /* Against */

Applejuicefool — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:27:09 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:27, 28 November 2006
Line 56:		Line 56:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)
-	#	+	# [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 00:27, 28 November 2006 (EST); (Sorry, just don't understand the point of this one).
	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

Dayd: /* Against */

Dayd — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:11:43 GMT

Against

←Older revision		Revision as of 02:11, 28 November 2006
Line 55:		Line 55:
	=== Against ===		=== Against ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
-	#	+	# --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 21:11, 27 November 2006 (EST)
		+	#
	__NOEDITSECTION__		__NOEDITSECTION__

Tucana25: /* For */

Tucana25 — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:00:15 GMT

For

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:00, 28 November 2006
Line 48:		Line 48:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 15:58, 26 November 2006 (EST)		# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 15:58, 26 November 2006 (EST)
		+	#--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 20:00, 27 November 2006 (EST)
	#		#

TomFoolery at 20:58, 26 November 2006

TomFoolery — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:58:21 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 26 November 2006
Line 40:		Line 40:

	This proposal was never intended to cover transmutation. I believe that transmutation is covered adequately by [[103]] and [[109]], if someone would like a rule specifically discussing transmutation from mutable to immutable, they can propose one, or they can request a ruling from the Judge when we have one. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 15:33, 26 November 2006 (EST)		This proposal was never intended to cover transmutation. I believe that transmutation is covered adequately by [[103]] and [[109]], if someone would like a rule specifically discussing transmutation from mutable to immutable, they can propose one, or they can request a ruling from the Judge when we have one. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 15:33, 26 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	This is the final form of the proposal, please vote at this time. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 15:58, 26 November 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Line 45:		Line 47:
	=== For ===		=== For ===
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
		+	# --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 15:58, 26 November 2006 (EST)
	#		#

TomFoolery: /* Debate */

TomFoolery — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:33:44 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 26 November 2006
Line 39:		Line 39:
	[[103]] allows for transmutation from immutable to mutable, "and vice versa". [[109]] says imm to mut requires unanimous vote. There's nothing out of the ordinary about a transmutation from mutable to immutable, at the current time. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 15:09, 26 November 2006 (EST)		[[103]] allows for transmutation from immutable to mutable, "and vice versa". [[109]] says imm to mut requires unanimous vote. There's nothing out of the ordinary about a transmutation from mutable to immutable, at the current time. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 15:09, 26 November 2006 (EST)

		+	This proposal was never intended to cover transmutation. I believe that transmutation is covered adequately by [[103]] and [[109]], if someone would like a rule specifically discussing transmutation from mutable to immutable, they can propose one, or they can request a ruling from the Judge when we have one. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 15:33, 26 November 2006 (EST)
	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Applejuicefool: /* Debate */

Applejuicefool — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:09:57 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 26 November 2006
Line 36:		Line 36:

	There has never been a rule concerning transmuting from mutable to immutable. Someone will have to propose one. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 12:19, 26 November 2006 (EST)		There has never been a rule concerning transmuting from mutable to immutable. Someone will have to propose one. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 12:19, 26 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	[[103]] allows for transmutation from immutable to mutable, "and vice versa". [[109]] says imm to mut requires unanimous vote. There's nothing out of the ordinary about a transmutation from mutable to immutable, at the current time. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 15:09, 26 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

TomFoolery: /* Debate */

TomFoolery — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:19:28 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 26 November 2006
Line 34:		Line 34:

	[[109]] only deals with transmuting rules from immutable to mutable. There is nothing in the rules that say anything about mutable to immutable. Aside from the general being a rule change and rule changes need a simple majority. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:27, 26 November 2006 (EST)		[[109]] only deals with transmuting rules from immutable to mutable. There is nothing in the rules that say anything about mutable to immutable. Aside from the general being a rule change and rule changes need a simple majority. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:27, 26 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	There has never been a rule concerning transmuting from mutable to immutable. Someone will have to propose one. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 12:19, 26 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->

Dayd: /* Debate */

Dayd — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:27:40 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 26 November 2006
Line 32:		Line 32:

	[[109]] requires a unanimous "For" vote to transmute any rule, so it is not necessary to cover it in this proposal. Making a rule harder to adopt would not force players to think about the long term ramifications of their proposals. By making them harder to repeal we force ourselves to contemplate what situations would warrant said repeal, before we propose the rule. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 19:28, 25 November 2006 (EST)		[[109]] requires a unanimous "For" vote to transmute any rule, so it is not necessary to cover it in this proposal. Making a rule harder to adopt would not force players to think about the long term ramifications of their proposals. By making them harder to repeal we force ourselves to contemplate what situations would warrant said repeal, before we propose the rule. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 19:28, 25 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	[[109]] only deals with transmuting rules from immutable to mutable. There is nothing in the rules that say anything about mutable to immutable. Aside from the general being a rule change and rule changes need a simple majority. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 11:27, 26 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->