Talk:324
From Nomicapolis
m (Talk:314 moved to Talk:324) |
(→For) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | This is the | + | <!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS--> |
| + | Please substitute this template. To do so add '''subst:''' in the template call. This is how it should look typed: <big><nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:vote<nowiki>}}</nowiki></big> <br /> When it is fixed please remove these instructions by editing the page normally. | ||
| + | <!--END INSTRUCTIONS--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.--> | ||
| + | == Proposer's summary and declarations == | ||
| + | This rule will prevent abuse of rules. It is also a conerstone in real life legislation.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 12:12, 23 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Debate == | ||
| + | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=2 Add comments] | ||
| + | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Quick question: Is this up for vote already? Look at [[303]] and [[313]]. The way I read em, [[303]] requires 3 days of debate unless the proposer declares an early end to the debate. [[313]] says the debate will last at least 24 hours. So since [[303]] takes precedence (c.f. [[210]]), we need to wait 3 days unless Shivan cuts it short. Is my reasoning faulty? [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 14:38, 25 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm opposed to this because i think this proposal makes the game less interesting as well as being easily circumvented. Say I make a proposal that the member who drafted proposal 345 shall henforce be known as king of wikiville. i'm not saying...im just saying... (oh...and i like hitting the sig w/ timestamp better than calculating EST) One more thing, did i do something incorrectly causing this page to ask me to do something with templates...if so i don't know how to do such a thing and would appreciate guidance. Thank You | ||
| + | --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:44, 25 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | By [[303]] this proposal should be up for vote at 12:13 today, unless [[User:Shivan|Shivan]] calls a vote, We cannot vote before then. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:10, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | We have met the time constraints of [[303]], I am voting. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 14:02, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | None has anything to add exept for the vote thing on this one, so I vote now! --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:24, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Vote == | ||
| + | === For === | ||
| + | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=4 Add FOR vote] | ||
| + | # --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 14:03, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | #--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:25, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:54, 27 November 2006 (EST); (Can't think of a situation in which naming a player in a rule would be a good thing. Would be in favor of later amendment to exclude loopholes to this rule)<!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Against === | ||
| + | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | ||
| + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 17:37, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | # --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 09:43, 27 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | __NOEDITSECTION__ | ||
Current revision as of 15:54, 27 November 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
This rule will prevent abuse of rules. It is also a conerstone in real life legislation.--Shivan 12:12, 23 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
Quick question: Is this up for vote already? Look at 303 and 313. The way I read em, 303 requires 3 days of debate unless the proposer declares an early end to the debate. 313 says the debate will last at least 24 hours. So since 303 takes precedence (c.f. 210), we need to wait 3 days unless Shivan cuts it short. Is my reasoning faulty? Applejuicefool 14:38, 25 November 2006 (EST)
I'm opposed to this because i think this proposal makes the game less interesting as well as being easily circumvented. Say I make a proposal that the member who drafted proposal 345 shall henforce be known as king of wikiville. i'm not saying...im just saying... (oh...and i like hitting the sig w/ timestamp better than calculating EST) One more thing, did i do something incorrectly causing this page to ask me to do something with templates...if so i don't know how to do such a thing and would appreciate guidance. Thank You --Tucana25 23:44, 25 November 2006 (EST)
By 303 this proposal should be up for vote at 12:13 today, unless Shivan calls a vote, We cannot vote before then. --TomFoolery 10:10, 26 November 2006 (EST)
We have met the time constraints of 303, I am voting. --TomFoolery 14:02, 26 November 2006 (EST)
None has anything to add exept for the vote thing on this one, so I vote now! --Shivan 06:24, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
- --TomFoolery 14:03, 26 November 2006 (EST)
- --Shivan 06:25, 27 November 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 10:54, 27 November 2006 (EST); (Can't think of a situation in which naming a player in a rule would be a good thing. Would be in favor of later amendment to exclude loopholes to this rule)
Against
