Talk:329
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
TomFoolery (Talk | contribs) (→Debate) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Could the member of the 'lowest numbered proposal' hijack proceedings if they choose to allow the full 14 days of debate? | Could the member of the 'lowest numbered proposal' hijack proceedings if they choose to allow the full 14 days of debate? | ||
--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:58, 25 November 2006 (EST) | --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:58, 25 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | If I proposed 356, and 355 has one vote, voting could start on 356. As soon as 355 passes or fails, there would be no proposal with a lower number than 356, and per [[329]] sec 2: "A proposal which has already received at least one vote may be voted on as long as there are proposals with lower numbers still being voted on. " we would have to stop voting on it. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Also, if [[326]] passes [[329]] sec 3 would reference two repealed rules. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 15:30, 26 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
The purpose of this proposed rule is to make sure that lower-numbered rules are dealt with, and not just left sitting in debate or in vote. Applejuicefool 10:36, 25 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
Could the member of the 'lowest numbered proposal' hijack proceedings if they choose to allow the full 14 days of debate? --Tucana25 23:58, 25 November 2006 (EST)
If I proposed 356, and 355 has one vote, voting could start on 356. As soon as 355 passes or fails, there would be no proposal with a lower number than 356, and per 329 sec 2: "A proposal which has already received at least one vote may be voted on as long as there are proposals with lower numbers still being voted on. " we would have to stop voting on it. --TomFoolery 10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST)
Also, if 326 passes 329 sec 3 would reference two repealed rules. --TomFoolery 10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
