|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| - | This is a discussion regarding [[User:Applejuicefool]]'s comment on [[Talk:315/vote-archive-1]]. I think that I might have gone too far in creating so many header boxes for the different types of proposals/rules. I think that there is need for only a few of those header boxes. The others just seem redundant to me. The ones that I would like to keep are listed below:
| + | Very good web site |
| - | * {{tl|Current immutable rule}}
| + | Great work and thank you for your service |
| - | * {{tl|Current mutable rule}}
| + | Bob |
| - | * {{tl|Proposed rule}}
| + | |
| - | * {{tl|Draft proposal}}
| + | |
| - | * {{tl|Repealed rule}}
| + | |
| - | * {{tl|Failed proposal}}
| + | |
| | | | |
| - | The others are variants of the '''Proposed rule''' header box and, in my opinion, are not explicitly needed. Any thoughts on the matter? [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:02, 15 November 2006 (EST)
| + | [http://z.la/t96c0 naked girls] | |
| - | | + | [http://z.la/vayh4 swingers] | |
| - | I dunno...I kind of like the different templates - they let you see at a glance what's going on. Rules-wise, templates are not required for a proposal to be valid. I can see some benefit to paring them down - it's less confusing for newbs. I would like to know exactly what is done to the rules for each type of rule change:
| + | [http://z.la/olbnv mother daughter incest] | |
| - | * New Rule: The rule is added at the proposal number.
| + | [http://z.la/c6k3g old naked grannies] |
| - | * Amendment: The old rule is removed (and archived) and the proposal number becomes rule + amendment, right? What happens with an amendment in which the proposal doesn't list the amended rule in its entirety? For example "The second clause of Rule 296 is hereby amended to read ''blah''." If passed, would the proposal number page then list the entire amended rule?
| + | |
| - | * Repeal: The old rule is removed (and archived), the proposal number is left in place stating "Rule XXX is repealed".
| + | |
| - | * Transmutation: The old rule is removed (and archived), the proposal number becomes the rule with a mutable/immutable header.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Are these all correct? [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 17:02, 15 November 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Sounds correct to me. As for an amendment to a clause the whole rule would need to be rewritten. Also clauses could be an infrigement on rule [[111]]. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 21:16, 15 November 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :True. But note that although [[111]] implies that a proposal can't include more than one rule change, there is no actual ''rule'' prohibiting it. So apparently we can debate a proposal for lumping several changes together, but it's not actually against the rules. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 22:31, 15 November 2006 (EST) | + | |
