Talk:383
From Nomicapolis
(vote template) |
(passed) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | Voting is closed; this proposal passed. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 21:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | | | + | |
| - | + | Proposed by: [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 10:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT) | |
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
<!--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 == | ||
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}} | {{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}} | ||
| + | Since there are no more Scorekeeper elections, it makes little sense to have a rule that states what happens if the winner of the Judge election also wins the Scorekeeper election. I was going to propose amending for clarity, but since the current Judge was opposed to this limitation in the first place and at the moment if a Scorekeeper was elected judge and the other players were unhappy with that they could strip him of Scorekeeper status with the same vote totals it would take to amend this rule, I'm just proposing repeal. Unless Tucana25 has changed his opinion on whether it matters if one person holds both offices, I see no chance of this proposal failing, so I suggest that debate run through 5:00 PM today. [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 10:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|2|Add comments}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|2|Add comments}} | ||
<!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | <!--BEGIN DEBATE--> | ||
| - | + | Bring it...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT) | |
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
== Vote == | == Vote == | ||
| + | Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. | ||
| + | |||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | ||
| + | # [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 18:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | # [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | # --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 20:05, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | <!--DO NOT REMOVE--><br /> | ||
| + | |||
=== Against === | === Against === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|5|Add AGAINST vote}} | ||
Current revision as of 01:18, 29 April 2007
Voting is closed; this proposal passed. Wooble 21:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Proposed by: Wooble 10:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Since there are no more Scorekeeper elections, it makes little sense to have a rule that states what happens if the winner of the Judge election also wins the Scorekeeper election. I was going to propose amending for clarity, but since the current Judge was opposed to this limitation in the first place and at the moment if a Scorekeeper was elected judge and the other players were unhappy with that they could strip him of Scorekeeper status with the same vote totals it would take to amend this rule, I'm just proposing repeal. Unless Tucana25 has changed his opinion on whether it matters if one person holds both offices, I see no chance of this proposal failing, so I suggest that debate run through 5:00 PM today. Wooble 10:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Debate
Bring it...--Tucana25 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on.
For
- Wooble 18:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- BobTHJ 21:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- --Tucana25 20:05, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Against
Abstain
