Talk:329 - Revision history

Applejuicefool at 19:24, 30 November 2006

Applejuicefool — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:24:47 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 30 November 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	The proposal has been mostly reworded to eliminate some of the confusion mentioned below by Tom and Dayd. I will put it up for a vote @ 6 p.m. today, barring further debate. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 08:28, 29 November 2006 (EST)		The proposal has been mostly reworded to eliminate some of the confusion mentioned below by Tom and Dayd. I will put it up for a vote @ 6 p.m. today, barring further debate. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 08:28, 29 November 2006 (EST)

-	:sigh I screwed up - my latest edit to this should say "rule change proposals" instead of "rules" in the second condition of clause 2. As stated, this rule will not have the intended effect. It's too late to change it because I already opened voting, so my only option is to propose an amendment to fix it should this pass. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 14:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)	+	: sigh I screwed up - my latest edit to this should say "rule change proposals" instead of "rules" in the second condition of clause 2. As stated, this rule will not have the intended effect. It's too late to change it because I already opened voting, so my only option is to propose an amendment to fix it should this pass. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 14:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)

	== Debate ==		== Debate ==

Applejuicefool at 19:24, 30 November 2006

Applejuicefool — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:24:18 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 30 November 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The proposal has been mostly reworded to eliminate some of the confusion mentioned below by Tom and Dayd. I will put it up for a vote @ 6 p.m. today, barring further debate. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 08:28, 29 November 2006 (EST)		The proposal has been mostly reworded to eliminate some of the confusion mentioned below by Tom and Dayd. I will put it up for a vote @ 6 p.m. today, barring further debate. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 08:28, 29 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	:sigh I screwed up - my latest edit to this should say "rule change proposals" instead of "rules" in the second condition of clause 2. As stated, this rule will not have the intended effect. It's too late to change it because I already opened voting, so my only option is to propose an amendment to fix it should this pass. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 14:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)

	== Debate ==		== Debate ==

Applejuicefool at 13:57, 30 November 2006

Applejuicefool — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:57:55 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:57, 30 November 2006
Line 21:		Line 21:

	:Okay, I can see the confusion. The solution lies in other rules. This rule doesn't say that voting must cease when there are no proposals with lower numbers still being voted on. It just says that voting may continue on a proposal as long as there are lower numbered proposals. But I will reword. As to the other point, if no one cares enough to at least cast an abstention to keep the game going, then what's the point anyway? But again, I will reword. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 14:49, 28 November 2006 (EST)		:Okay, I can see the confusion. The solution lies in other rules. This rule doesn't say that voting must cease when there are no proposals with lower numbers still being voted on. It just says that voting may continue on a proposal as long as there are lower numbered proposals. But I will reword. As to the other point, if no one cares enough to at least cast an abstention to keep the game going, then what's the point anyway? But again, I will reword. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 14:49, 28 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 08:57, 30 November 2006 (EST)

	<!--END DEBATE-->		<!--END DEBATE-->
Line 27:		Line 29:
	=== 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:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 08:57, 30 November 2006 (EST)
	# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->		# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE-->

Applejuicefool at 13:28, 29 November 2006

Applejuicefool — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:28:23 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:28, 29 November 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:

	I fixed Tom's "two repealed rules" problem below. I will give this 24 more hours for comment on the change before bringing it to a vote. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:36, 25 November 2006 (EST)		I fixed Tom's "two repealed rules" problem below. I will give this 24 more hours for comment on the change before bringing it to a vote. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:36, 25 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	The proposal has been mostly reworded to eliminate some of the confusion mentioned below by Tom and Dayd. I will put it up for a vote @ 6 p.m. today, barring further debate. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 08:28, 29 November 2006 (EST)

	== Debate ==		== Debate ==

Applejuicefool: /* Debate */

Applejuicefool — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:49:48 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 28 November 2006
Line 17:		Line 17:

	I agree with Tom on the clause of #2 meaning that you can't cast any more votes on the lowest proposal still being voted on. Also if somehow a proposal fails because it doesn't gain Quorum because NO ONE voted on it then you wouldn't be allowed to vote on anything else. Not saying it's going to happen, but it is possible. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 14:37, 28 November 2006 (EST)		I agree with Tom on the clause of #2 meaning that you can't cast any more votes on the lowest proposal still being voted on. Also if somehow a proposal fails because it doesn't gain Quorum because NO ONE voted on it then you wouldn't be allowed to vote on anything else. Not saying it's going to happen, but it is possible. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 14:37, 28 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	:Okay, I can see the confusion. The solution lies in other rules. This rule doesn't say that voting must cease when there are no proposals with lower numbers still being voted on. It just says that voting may continue on a proposal as long as there are lower numbered proposals. But I will reword. As to the other point, if no one cares enough to at least cast an abstention to keep the game going, then what's the point anyway? But again, I will reword. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 14:49, 28 November 2006 (EST)

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

Dayd: /* Debate */

Dayd — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:37:24 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 28 November 2006
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Also, if [[326]] passes [[329]] sec 3 would reference two repealed rules. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST)		Also, if [[326]] passes [[329]] sec 3 would reference two repealed rules. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	I agree with Tom on the clause of #2 meaning that you can't cast any more votes on the lowest proposal still being voted on. Also if somehow a proposal fails because it doesn't gain Quorum because NO ONE voted on it then you wouldn't be allowed to vote on anything else. Not saying it's going to happen, but it is possible. --[[User:Dayd\|Dayd]] 14:37, 28 November 2006 (EST)

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

Applejuicefool at 13:53, 28 November 2006

Applejuicefool — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:53:53 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 28 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--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 ==
-	The purpose of this proposed rule is to make sure that lower-numbered rules are dealt with, and not just left sitting in debate or in vote. I fixed Tom's "two repealed rules" problem below. I will give this 24 more hours for comment on the change before bringing it to a vote. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:36, 25 November 2006 (EST)	+	The purpose of this proposed rule is to make sure that lower-numbered rules are dealt with, and not just left sitting in debate or in vote.
		+
		+	I fixed Tom's "two repealed rules" problem below. I will give this 24 more hours for comment on the change before bringing it to a vote. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:36, 25 November 2006 (EST)

	== Debate ==		== Debate ==

Applejuicefool at 13:53, 28 November 2006

Applejuicefool — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:53:34 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 28 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--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 ==
-	The purpose of this proposed rule is to make sure that lower-numbered rules are dealt with, and not just left sitting in debate or in vote. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:36, 25 November 2006 (EST)	+	The purpose of this proposed rule is to make sure that lower-numbered rules are dealt with, and not just left sitting in debate or in vote. I fixed Tom's "two repealed rules" problem below. I will give this 24 more hours for comment on the change before bringing it to a vote. [[User:Applejuicefool\|Applejuicefool]] 10:36, 25 November 2006 (EST)

	== Debate ==		== Debate ==

TomFoolery: /* Debate */

TomFoolery — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:30:16 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 26 November 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Could the member of the 'lowest numbered proposal' hijack proceedings if they choose to allow the full 14 days of debate?		Could the member of the 'lowest numbered proposal' hijack proceedings if they choose to allow the full 14 days of debate?
	--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 23:58, 25 November 2006 (EST)		--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 23:58, 25 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	If I proposed 356, and 355 has one vote, voting could start on 356. As soon as 355 passes or fails, there would be no proposal with a lower number than 356, and per [[329]] sec 2: "A proposal which has already received at least one vote may be voted on as long as there are proposals with lower numbers still being voted on. " we would have to stop voting on it. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST)
		+
		+	Also, if [[326]] passes [[329]] sec 3 would reference two repealed rules. --[[User:TomFoolery\|TomFoolery]] 10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST)

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

Tucana25: /* Debate */

Tucana25 — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:58:02 GMT

Debate

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 26 November 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]		<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]
	<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->		<!--BEGIN DEBATE-->
		+
		+	Could the member of the 'lowest numbered proposal' hijack proceedings if they choose to allow the full 14 days of debate?
		+	--[[User:Tucana25\|Tucana25]] 23:58, 25 November 2006 (EST)

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