Talk:347
From Nomicapolis
(→Debate) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
<!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.--> | <!--WARNING: Do not add header tags "==" to above this line. Doing so will break the links.--> | ||
== Proposer's summary and declarations == | == Proposer's summary and declarations == | ||
| Line 6: | Line 4: | ||
Debate for this proposal shall end December 9, 2006 at 00:01 EST | Debate for this proposal shall end December 9, 2006 at 00:01 EST | ||
| + | Debate shall be extended until December 12, 2006 at 00:01 EST | ||
== Debate == | == Debate == | ||
| Line 26: | Line 25: | ||
* 4. I'd prefer territories had their own page. | * 4. I'd prefer territories had their own page. | ||
--[[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 17:25, 6 December 2006 (EST) | --[[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 17:25, 6 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I follow your points about needing to rephrase part 1. The idea about the rule applying only to FoolsParadise or Simville would be if AJF wants to post on Simville's userpage, Simulacrum would receive 1 point per post. Or AJF could have his rule state that if the New York Mets win the World Series in 2007, AJF shall receive 50 points. If the proposal seems to provide an avenue for abuse, there is the safegaurd that other members can vote it down during its proposal time. I mean to add that a player won't be able to vote on his own proposal. The repeal of a previous rule was intended to occur upon the proposal of a new rule; that way if your new rules fails, you don't still have the old one laying around. The rule would be listed as FoolsParadise 801, 802, 803 and Simville 801, 802, 803 (Etc.) Thank you for the input, keep it up. This proposal took me forever to write because I don't really know how to word it so that it allows for some fun without having a loophole that ends the game. I'm open to any and all suggestions. Assuming I can address the issues raised already, is this something you want to add to the game? --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:44, 6 December 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 02:44, 7 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 shall be extended until December 12, 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)
I follow your points about needing to rephrase part 1. The idea about the rule applying only to FoolsParadise or Simville would be if AJF wants to post on Simville's userpage, Simulacrum would receive 1 point per post. Or AJF could have his rule state that if the New York Mets win the World Series in 2007, AJF shall receive 50 points. If the proposal seems to provide an avenue for abuse, there is the safegaurd that other members can vote it down during its proposal time. I mean to add that a player won't be able to vote on his own proposal. The repeal of a previous rule was intended to occur upon the proposal of a new rule; that way if your new rules fails, you don't still have the old one laying around. The rule would be listed as FoolsParadise 801, 802, 803 and Simville 801, 802, 803 (Etc.) Thank you for the input, keep it up. This proposal took me forever to write because I don't really know how to word it so that it allows for some fun without having a loophole that ends the game. I'm open to any and all suggestions. Assuming I can address the issues raised already, is this something you want to add to the game? --Tucana25 21:44, 6 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
