Talk:329
From Nomicapolis
m |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Also, if [[326]] passes [[329]] sec 3 would reference two repealed rules. --[[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10:30, 26 November 2006 (EST) | Also, if [[326]] passes [[329]] sec 3 would reference two repealed rules.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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Tom on the clause of #2 meaning that you can't cast any more votes on the lowest proposal still being voted on. Also if somehow a proposal fails because it doesn't gain Quorum because NO ONE voted on it then you wouldn't be allowed to vote on anything else. Not saying it's going to happen, but it is possible. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:37, 28 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 19:37, 28 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.
I fixed Tom's "two repealed rules" problem below. I will give this 24 more hours for comment on the change before bringing it to a 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Also, if 326 passes 329 sec 3 would reference two repealed rules.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)
I agree with Tom on the clause of #2 meaning that you can't cast any more votes on the lowest proposal still being voted on. Also if somehow a proposal fails because it doesn't gain Quorum because NO ONE voted on it then you wouldn't be allowed to vote on anything else. Not saying it's going to happen, but it is possible. --Dayd 14:37, 28 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
