Talk:365
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
324 predates me being here, but I would never have voted for it. I don't even think there is a good wording for it (which is part of the problem I'm having with 361). If I wanted to enact a Bill of Attainder and the electorate backed me up on this wish, I could easily phrase it so that it didn't use the specific player's name. [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 00:39, 2 January 2007 (EST) | 324 predates me being here, but I would never have voted for it. I don't even think there is a good wording for it (which is part of the problem I'm having with 361). If I wanted to enact a Bill of Attainder and the electorate backed me up on this wish, I could easily phrase it so that it didn't use the specific player's name. [[User:Chuck|chuck]] 00:39, 2 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I voted against 324 to begin with...so I'm all for this...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:39, 2 January 2007 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 18:39, 2 January 2007
Proposed by: --Finisterre 06:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary Rule 324 should be repealed because it is in conflict with Rule 306. 324 states: “No rule may mention a player's name.” Rule 306 states “In order for a proposal to be “proposed in the proper way”… it must contain … c) The user name of the proposer.” There is no paradox, since Rule 210 dictates that 306 takes precedence. Given this fact, Rule 324 is obsolete and should be repealed. The intended effect of Proposal 324 is one which I think is unnecessary- why shouldn’t rules mention players’ names? --Finisterre 06:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Debate for this proposal shall end Jan 8, 2007 at 00:01.
Debate
The rule was intented to limit proposals from excluding or limiting to an individual proposal. Such as "Dayd, Shivan, and Applejuicefool get two votes." or "Dayd cannot recieve points." This was considered an abuse of the current rules. While you are correct that there is a slight paradox rule 306 takes precedence since it is of a lower number. However I suppose if 358 passes then there will be a conflict of rules. However that being said I do support the repeal of this rule, but want to point out that the initial reasoning for the proposal is slightly flawed from my point of view. --Dayd 17:57, 1 January 2007 (EST)
324 predates me being here, but I would never have voted for it. I don't even think there is a good wording for it (which is part of the problem I'm having with 361). If I wanted to enact a Bill of Attainder and the electorate backed me up on this wish, I could easily phrase it so that it didn't use the specific player's name. chuck 00:39, 2 January 2007 (EST)
I voted against 324 to begin with...so I'm all for this...--Tucana25 13:39, 2 January 2007 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
Abstain
