Talk:358

From Nomicapolis

Revision as of 18:56, 3 January 2007 (view source) Finisterre (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff		Current revision as of 23:08, 4 January 2007 (view source) Dayd (Talk | contribs)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->		<!--BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS-->
-	Please substitute this template. To do so add '''subst:''' in the template call. This is how it should look typed: <big><nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:vote<nowiki>}}</nowiki></big> <br /> When it is fixed please remove these instructions by editing the page normally.	+	I declare this proposal passed. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:08, 4 January 2007 (EST)
	<!--END INSTRUCTIONS-->		<!--END INSTRUCTIONS-->

---

Current revision as of 23:08, 4 January 2007

I declare this proposal passed. --Dayd 18:08, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Contents 1 Proposer's summary and declarations 2 Debate 3 Vote 3.1 For 3.2 Against 3.3 Abstain

Proposer's summary and declarations

Proposer's summary

This fixes the dead-end link to a repealed rule as discussed in the Game Direction

Debate for this proposal shall end December 22, 2006 at 00:01 EST --Tucana25 16:15, 19 December 2006 (EST)

I have changed a few things and am now calling for a vote. --Tucana25 22:17, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Debate

Add comments Well if we're going to be fixing that why not amend the rule to make the Judge the judge of if a proposal is proper like the original rule set intended. The reason I think this was created and correct me if I'm wrong AJF was because there wasn't a way to determine who a Judge was in the beginning. I mean we've only had 1 vote of improper proposal and it was initally brought to the Judge who ruled that he couldn't rule. That and then we don't have to wait 3 days for all the votes to come in to decide if the rule is proper or not. --Dayd 11:46, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think its either time to vote, or this proposal fails due to apathy. --Finisterre 06:49, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Per 326, he gets 14 days. The "debate will end" bit is really just a suggestion as far as I can tell, since 111 doesn't allow anyone else but a Judge to force voting to start. chuck 12:52, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Section 2c is mostly just copied from the original rule. I'm of the understanding where if someone calls for a vote for improper proposal, five and two 1/2 points are awarded (half the ten/five you get for a rule proposal) --Tucana25 13:51, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Vote

For

Add FOR vote

1. --Tucana25 22:17, 1 January 2007 (EST)
2. --Dayd 21:27, 2 January 2007 (EST)
3. --Finisterre 13:56, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. --TomFoolery 12:59, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Abstain

Add Abstention

1. chuck 12:22, 3 January 2007 (EST) (Section 2.c is incoherent to me)