Talk:347
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
I don't really like any of part 3 if I'm Mayor I don't want someone telling me how I can "rule" other than what's already established as a rule for everyone. Part 1 should be reworded. I mean I could declare myself Mayor of FoolsParadise and Simville if I wanted to. Also shouldn't the Players have to be members of a particular region to vote in that region? --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:13, 6 December 2006 (EST) | I don't really like any of part 3 if I'm Mayor I don't want someone telling me how I can "rule" other than what's already established as a rule for everyone. Part 1 should be reworded. I mean I could declare myself Mayor of FoolsParadise and Simville if I wanted to. Also shouldn't the Players have to be members of a particular region to vote in that region? --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:13, 6 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm not a big fan of how it's worded now. | ||
| + | * 1. I can declare myself mayor of YOUR territory. | ||
| + | * 3. It's not too clear how a rule "applies only to a territory". Do players declare themselves citizens of the territory? | ||
| + | * 3.1. The naming convention isn't clearly given (I don't like merely prepending the territory name with no separation). | ||
| + | * 3.4 allows minority rule. Not too keen on it. | ||
| + | * 3.5 again isn't clear that it's the territory-specific rule that's repealed. And it doesn't make territories very interesting if their "charter" can only have one rule. | ||
| + | * 4. I'd prefer territories had their own page. | ||
| + | --[[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 17:25, 6 December 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 22:25, 6 December 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Use your imagination.
Debate for this proposal shall end December 9, 2006 at 00:01 EST
Debate
I was considering doing something similar to this, but to the extent that players decide which "burb" of Nomicapolis to be a part of. Sort of a Federal system. However I'm not sure how I like the rule as proposed. Good idea, bad on paper. --Dayd 21:09, 5 December 2006 (EST)
Alright, I request some clarification. Let's say there will exist, per this rule, FoolsParadise with AJF as mayor and Simville with myself as mayor. Could there be two rules with the same number but with different prefixes? (Ex. FoolsParidise801 and Simville801) Also, 3.5 states: "When a new rule is proposed..." Shouldn't it be when a new rule is enacted, or am I not understanding correctly? --Simulacrum 01:20, 6 December 2006 (EST)
I don't really like any of part 3 if I'm Mayor I don't want someone telling me how I can "rule" other than what's already established as a rule for everyone. Part 1 should be reworded. I mean I could declare myself Mayor of FoolsParadise and Simville if I wanted to. Also shouldn't the Players have to be members of a particular region to vote in that region? --Dayd 14:13, 6 December 2006 (EST)
I'm not a big fan of how it's worded now.
- 1. I can declare myself mayor of YOUR territory.
- 3. It's not too clear how a rule "applies only to a territory". Do players declare themselves citizens of the territory?
- 3.1. The naming convention isn't clearly given (I don't like merely prepending the territory name with no separation).
- 3.4 allows minority rule. Not too keen on it.
- 3.5 again isn't clear that it's the territory-specific rule that's repealed. And it doesn't make territories very interesting if their "charter" can only have one rule.
- 4. I'd prefer territories had their own page.
--Chuck 17:25, 6 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
