Talk:336
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Sorry I am having trouble understanding the unaminous provision of this proposal could the proposer please clarify? -- [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 09:09, 28 November {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC) | Sorry I am having trouble understanding the unaminous provision of this proposal could the proposer please clarify? -- [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 09:09, 28 November {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC) | ||
:"Unaminous consent shall be defined as no votes not having any AGAINST votes." As Sim points out, this sentence is not grammatically correct. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:23, 28 November 2006 (EST)<br><br> | :"Unaminous consent shall be defined as no votes not having any AGAINST votes." As Sim points out, this sentence is not grammatically correct. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:23, 28 November 2006 (EST)<br><br> | ||
| - | I corrected it now. Sorry for the misspell, the SP was needed ( :--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 16:10, 28 November 2006 (EST) | + | I corrected it now. Sorry for the misspell, the SP was needed ( :--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 16:10, 28 November 2006 (EST)<br><br> |
| + | No other comments it seems. "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on." --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:07, 30 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 05:07, 30 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
To make my other proposal 327 possible, it is neccecary to ammend rule 310. Basicly instead of defining majority as a percentage of total votes, it is now defined as the relation between FOR and AGAINST votes. The old definition used to be fine since there was only FOR and AGAINST, but since i am trying to implement the ABSTAIN vote this change is neccecary.--Shivan 07:22, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
Add comments
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but a vote can include more than a simple "for" or "against". What about a judge election, for instance? If we had a judge election in which there was more than one candidate, we wouldn't have "for" and "against", we would have contestants names, or "for" votes for individual candidates, but not "against" votes. Applejuicefool 10:38, 27 November 2006 (EST)
But this is specifically mentioned in the rule:
"In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win.""--Shivan 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Oops! Sorry, I missed that line. Looks good to me. Applejuicefool 00:34, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Sorry I am having trouble understanding the unaminous provision of this proposal could the proposer please clarify? -- Simulacrum 09:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Unaminous consent shall be defined as no votes not having any AGAINST votes." As Sim points out, this sentence is not grammatically correct. Applejuicefool 09:23, 28 November 2006 (EST)
I corrected it now. Sorry for the misspell, the SP was needed ( :--Shivan 16:10, 28 November 2006 (EST)
No other comments it seems. "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on." --Shivan 00:07, 30 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
