Talk:348
From Nomicapolis
(→Against) |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit§ion=5 Add AGAINST vote] | ||
| + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:17, 12 December 2006 (EST) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
Revision as of 04:17, 13 December 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary"Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00pm EST 17 DEC 2006." This is intended to end proposals that amend the same rule at the same time. Looking for information if the wording is good. --Dayd 21:19, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Another intent is so that player A doesn't: amend 400 as such while player B: repeal 400. Well what happens if both pass. What happens if B passes before A?
Debate
I think it is more interesting when this is encouraged instead of forbidden. More like politics... --Tucana25 22:20, 5 December 2006 (EST)
I also added this proposal to the current events on the front page. --Tucana25 23:26, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Should the same rule be both amended and repealed, the intended result is that it should remain repealed, either before or after the amendment; in the latter case, the repealing proposal should follow to its new number and not try to abolish a non-existent rule; in the former one, the proposal to amend it becomes moot because a repealed rule cannot be amended. The current rules do not seem to count with this possibility; I have prepared a draft to deal with the situation. - Mike Rosoft 09:05, 8 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --Dayd 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --Dayd 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- --Tucana25 23:17, 12 December 2006 (EST)
