Nomicapolis - User contributions [en]

Talk:366

Shivan — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:32:32 GMT

Shivan: /* Vote */

Proposed by: --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:34, 4 January 2007 (EST)




== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
{{editsection|1|Proposer's summary}} Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 8 January 2007 (EST)
This is a proposal to determine what stage a rule is in and to help with when points are added and the rule actually takes effect. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:34, 4 January 2007 (EST)

== Debate ==
{{editsection|2|Add comments}}




== Vote ==
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on.
=== For ===
{{editsection|3|Add FOR vote}}
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:32, 9 January 2007 (EST)
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:44, 10 January 2007 (EST)
# --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 08:32, 11 January 2007 (EST)
# 

 
=== Against ===
{{editsection|4|Add AGAINST vote}}
# --[[User:Finisterre|Finisterre]] 08:18, 11 January 2007 (EST) (I'll be honest- this is tactical point gathering.)
# 

 
=== Abstain ===
{{editsection|5|Add Abstention}}
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:353

Shivan — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:25:28 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

Talk:352

Shivan — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:48:16 GMT

Shivan:

User:Shivan

Shivan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:53:23 GMT

Shivan:

{{Current number of points|20}}

Hello Everyone!

My real Name is Elgaard. I am 20 years old from Denmark. Right now I study Chinese at Copenhagen Business School.

'''My points'''
* Rule [[336]] +10
* Rule [[327]] +10

Talk:342

Shivan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:43:07 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This rule establishes the official game time. It also provides a way of determining current time in relation to the deadlines set forth in the debate/vote pages of proposals. I am open to suggestions. Debate will end for this proposal at 23:59, 7 December 2006 (EST).

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


So just to be clear, although any posting that includes a timestamp may not reflect EST, all deadlines for debate and voting shall refer to EST whether or not that is expicitly stated? --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 16:14, 1 December 2006 (EST)

: Using the wiki software that the game runs on a timestamp is represented by five tildes, <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>. When the page gets saved the five tildes are automatically converted to the time and date then current in the default server timezone which is EST. That is what is meant by timezone edit. Yes, all deadlines will be by the official (EST) timezone. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 22:13, 1 December 2006 (EST)

::So I know this was discussed elsewhere, but...is there no way to reconcile the tilde method with what the system says in the "recent changes". --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 22:21, 1 December 2006 (EST)

:: Yeah, there is, you have to offset your timezone preferences, for me it turned out to be -5:00 this solution will change the display of the recent changes to that of what timestamp would say. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 23:39, 1 December 2006 (EST)

I am thinking about adding the phrase, "as indicated by the server" to the end of the first sentence. This is to address our little time problem that [[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] pointed out [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/Game-direction?title=Game-direction&diff=3313&oldid=3295 here]. Any objections? --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:08, 6 December 2006 (EST)

:sounds good --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 08:25, 6 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
Debate is closed this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 15:12, 6 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 15:14, 6 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Chuck|Chuck]] 18:45, 6 December 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:48, 6 December 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 16:43, 8 December 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 16:02, 7 December 2006 (EST)
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

User:Shivan

Shivan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:01:26 GMT

Shivan:

{{Current number of points|20}}

Hello Everyone!

My real Name is Emil Elgaard. I am 20 years old from Denmark. Right now I study Chinese at Copenhagen Buisness School.

Proposals
[[314]] 
[[315?]] 
[[Minor rule]]

Template:Announcements

Shivan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:01:06 GMT

Shivan: /* '''Game News:''' */

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===
'''New rules:'''
* [[330]], is now a rule. It creates "Citizens of Nomicapolis". AWARDS: Applejuicefool +10, Tucana25 +5, Dayd +5
* [[331]], is now a rule. It ensures that immutable rules are separated in the current ruleset.
* [[332]], is now a rule. It limits the number of proposals a player may propose at a time.
* [[333]], is now a rule. It amended [[204]] to alter the way dissenters get points on passing proposals. AWARDS: Tucana25 +10, Dayd +10
* [[336]], is now a rule. It redefines "majority", et al, as the ratio between FOR and AGAINST votes. AWARDS: Shivan +10
* [[338]], is now a rule. It defines Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds. AWARDS: Applejuicefool +10
* [[335]], is now a rule. It sets up procedures to punish rule breakers. (Dayd +10, Tucana23 +5, TomFoolery +5)
* [[339]], is now a rule. It limits player point changes to those allowed by the rules (Dayd +10, Tucana25 +5)
* [[327]], is now finally a rule, It allows a player to abstain on a given proposal. AWARDS: Shivan +10

'''The following proposals failed:'''
* [[329]] failed to pass by lack of quorum. PENALTY: Applejuicefool -10.
* [[340]], a proposal regarding elected officials. (Tucana25 -10)
* [[344]], a proposal to redefine inactivity status. (Tucana25 -10)

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''

* [[334]], a proposal to amend [[303]].
* [[337]], a proposal to not allow inactive players to propose rules.
* [[341]], a proposal creating the position of Governor General and outlining their duties.
* [[343]], a proposal to ease restrictions on inactive players when the number of active players is low.
* [[342]], a proposal to set EST as the standard time for Nomicapolis.

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''
* [[345]], a proposal to transmute rule [[338]] to immutable status.
* [[346]], a proposal requiring proposers to vote for their proposals.
* [[347]], a proposal to introduce "Named Territories" within Nomicapolis.
* [[348]], a proposal to prevent similar proposals existing simultaneously.
* [[349]], a proposal to define who can vote in an election.
* [[350]], a proposal to define 'deceased' status.
* [[351]], a proposal to clarify the meanings of "vote".

'''A non-rule proposal has been made to elect a Judge per [[321]].'''
* [[Judge_Election|Special Election November '06]]
* [[Judge_Election1206|December '06 Election]]

==='''Meta-News:'''===
I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Current ruleset

Shivan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:59:36 GMT

Shivan:

This is the current ruleset. Any changes to this must be approved as outlined within the ruleset. To propose any change to this ruleset please go to the [[Proposals]] page and follow the instructions there. If there is any inconsistency between this list and individual rules pages, the individual rules as displayed on their respective pages shall prevail. Please update this page with any recent changes to the rules as outlined on the proposal page. See the category '''[[:Category:Current rule|Current rule]]''' for a up-to-date list of all the current rules.

==Immutable Rules==
===[[101]]===
All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

===[[102]]===
Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

===[[103]]===
A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)

===[[104]]===
All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

===[[106]]===
All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

===[[107]]===
No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

===[[108]]===
Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

===[[109]]===
Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

===[[110]]===
In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

===[[111]]===
If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

===[[112]]===
The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

===[[113]]===
A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

===[[114]]===
There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

===[[115]]===
Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.

===[[116]]===
Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

==Mutable Rules==

===[[205]]===
An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

===[[206]]===
When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

===[[207]]===
Each player always has exactly one vote.

===[[208]]===
The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

===[[210]]===
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

===[[302]]===

Players are limited to one Nomicapolis account in play. A new player may join by registering an account and then adding themselves to the census. A player may leave be removing themselves from the census. If a player who has left the game wishes to rejoin, they may do so, but they will start as a brand new player.

===[[303]]===

1. When a rule is proposed, there will be a period of three days of debate until it may be voted on.

1.1 If any player requests it, the debate time will be extended until this player is satisfied or they have abandoned the discussion.

1.1.1 This objection time may be overridden at anytime by the player who proposed the rule thus bringing the proposal straight to a vote.

1.1.2 If three days have elapsed and there is already votes registered for a proposal, no player may extend debate time, including the player who proposed it.

1.2 The proposing player may declare the proposal ready for vote before the three days have elapsed.

2. No player may modify the article page of a proposal while a vote is being conducted on that proposal, except to place a protection on the page.

3. If a rule gains the number of "for" votes required to pass or the number of "against" votes required to be defeated, any player may declare an end to voting on the proposal. If voting ends on a passing proposal, the player who declared the vote ended must immediately make the proposed change to the published ruleset. If voting ends on a defeated proposal, no player may add it to the ruleset.

===[[304]]===

Quorum for a vote shall be no fewer than 2 players.

===[[306]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 22:26, 12 April 2006 (PDT).

1. In order for a proposal to be "proposed in the proper way" and thus satisfy rule [[104]]/[[105]], it must contain the following elements:

:a) The correct number; i.e. the next number in the sequence.
:b) Verbiage that creates an actual or potential change to Nomicapolis play.
:c) The user name of the proposer. This should follow the proposal number and precede the text of the proposal in the format used in the proposal of this rule.
:d) Each numbered rule change proposal must have its own Nomicapolis article page and discussion page with the proposal number as the title of the page.

2. If a player believes that a rule was not proposed in the proper way, and/or was proposed in an improper way, he should create a section in the discussion page for that rule headed "Improper Proposal". Following the header, the player should state his reasons why he believes the proposal is not proper. Players may then vote on whether the proposal is proper.

:a) A claim of improper proposal must be made before the proposal is declared to have passed or failed.
:b) The rules for voting on claims of improper proposal and determining whether the claim passes or fails shall be the same as the rules for voting on and determining whether mutable rule changes pass or fail at the time the claim is made.
:c) If a claim of improper proposal passes, then the proposed rule is discarded without completion of a proposal vote. The proposer loses points as if his proposal had been voted down. If the claim fails, the vote on the proposal continues as usual.
:d) When a claim of improper proposal passes or fails, the claimant and voters in the claim action gain or lose half as many points as they would have had the claim been a proposal vote with a number equal to the proposal number of the proposal in question.
:e) A player may not make a claim of improper proposal against a proposal he/she originated.

===[[307]]===

This is a proposal to repeal rule [[202]]. Upon acceptance, rule [[202]] shall be removed from the rule set.

===[[308]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[201]] is amended to read, in entirety, "A player may propose a rule change at any time. Each player begins the game with 0 points."

===[[311]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[203]] is hereby amended to read, in entirety:

"A rule-change is adopted if and only if a simple majority of those voting on the rule change vote 'For' the proposal. This rule defers to rule [[304]]."

===[[312]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[211]] is hereby repealed.

===[[314]]===

Proposed by --Shivan 12:15, 6 November 2006 (EST)

1. Any player who has not voted on a proposal or debated on one within the last 14 days shall be declared inactive. 
1.1 If there have been no proposals to vote on since the player's previous vote, he or she cannot be declared inactive. 
2. A player's status will change from inactive to active after he or she has voted on at least one proposal.

===[[315]]===

Proposed by --Simulacrum 13:58, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[209]] is hereby repealed.

===[[316]]===
Proposed by --Dayd 00:19, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[309]] is hereby repealed.

===[[317]]===

Proposed by --Dayd 15:54, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[212]] shall be amended to read as follows: If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a rule change cannot be determined with finality, or if by a simple majority not overruled, a rule change appears equally legal and illegal, then the player with the most points is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

===[[319]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 16:45, 16 November 2006 (EST) 

This rule takes precedence over rule [[207]]

1. A player who is currently declared inactive shall recieve only ½ vote. 
2. All players that are declared inactive do not count against the total number of players for purposes of the quorum. 
3. When a player is declared inactive he or she loses 10 points (Gains 10 negative points). This cannot cause the player's points to go in the negative. 
4. When a player is declared inactive the census page shall be edited and refactored to account for the change in status.

===[[321]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:16, 17 November 2006 (EST)

The Judge of Nomicapolis will be voted for on the first of every month. The Player that recieves the most votes will become the Judge. In the event of a tie between 1 or more Players the Player that recieved the most votes first will become the Judge. The Judge will be responsible for resolving any and all problems with proposals and rules. The Judge will be expected to use their best judgement and resolve all problems within 7 days. The Judge may resign the position at any time. The Judge may be expelled with a supermajority vote. At any time there is not an active Player as Judge a special vote for a new Judge will be immediately conducted.

===[[322]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:14, 17 November 2006 (EST)

When a rule is passed the player that proposed it shall gain 10 (positive) points.

===[[324]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 12:13, 23 November 2006 (EST) 

No rule may mention a player's name.

===[[326]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tom Foolery|Tom Foolery]] 13:49, 23 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[313]] is hereby amended to read, in entirety:

#All debate on a proposal shall last between 24 hours and 14 days at the discretion of the person proposing the rule change. Said person is responsible for setting a debate limit at the time of the proposal by including the statement: "Debate will end for this proposal at **date and time**" in the "Proposer's summary and declarations" section of the talk page for that proposal.
#The person proposing the rule change shall call a vote at the end of the debate. The debate period can be cut short by the proposer with the calling for of a vote. Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed. If a vote is called, it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted or when it has been 24 hours since the last vote has been cast on the given proposal.
#A vote will be called on a proposal by adding the following statement: "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on." at the beginning of the "vote" section of the talk page for that proposal.

===[[327]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:39, 24 November 2006 (EST)

A player can choose to abstain on a proposal. To do this the player shall cast his vote on ABSTAIN. Votes cast on abstain count neither for nor against the proposal in question. They do count for the quorum.

===[[328]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tom Foolery|Tom Foolery]] 08:56, 24 November 2006 (EST)

#The Judge shall make a judgement whenever called upon to do so by any active player.
#The Judge shall abide by ''stare decisis.''
#A new page entitled "Decisions of the Judge" shall be created to hold such decisions, and shall be maintained by the current Judge.
#The decision of the Judge can only be overruled by a unanimous vote of all active players, except the player who was Judge at the time of the decision in question.

===[[330]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:46, 25 November 2006 (EST)

There exists a type of entity called "Citizen of Nomicapolis", a term which may be shortened to "Citizen" without the meaning being altered.

When this rule goes into effect, a number of Citizens is created equal to 5,000 for each active player, and 2,500 for each player whose status is other than "active."

New Citizens are not automatically added by this rule when new players join the game or when players gain "active" status. Citizens are not automatically eliminated by this rule when players leave the game or lose their "active" status. This rule provides for a one-time creation of Citizens, and this rule will not further affect the number of Citizens in the game.

Other rules may be adopted which will affect the number or nature of Citizens in the game.

The number of Citizens in the game is termed the "Population of Nomicapolis" or, simply, "Population." The Population shall be posted on the Nomicapolis main page. If the Population changes for any reason, this posting shall be updated to reflect the correct Population.

The Judge of Nomicapolis shall be responsible for calculating and properly posting the current Population. The preceding sentence of this rule defers to rules which assign this duty to another player.

===[[331]]===

Proposed by --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:51, 25 November 2006 (EST)

#Rule changes that transmute mutable rules into immutable rules may adopted if and only if the vote for the change is unanimous among eligible voters.
#As soon as a mutable rule is transmuted to immutable, it shall be moved to the immutable section of the current ruleset by the player declaring the vote ended.

===[[332]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:39, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Each active player will be allowed to have three (3) proposals active at any time. An active proposal is one that has first been proposed, secondly is in the debate stage or voting stage, and finally has not been passed or rejected.

===[[333]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:34, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[204]] is amended to read, in entirety:

"1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset.
1.1 This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule [[322]].
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each.
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points."

Should Proposal [[327]] be adopted an additional sentence shall be added as such:

"2.1No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote.

===[[335]]===

--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:33, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Any Player may accuse another Player of a violation of the rules. The Judge will determine if the accused Player is guilty and, if guilty will determine the punishment. A Player found guilty may ask for a decision to be overturned. The decision of the Judge may be overturned by a unanamious vote, which the Judge and the accused Player will not be allowed to vote. The decision of the vote may not be overturned.

===[[336]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:04, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Rule 310 is ammended to read, in entirety:
"In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute of a greater number of FOR than AGAINST votes. A supermajority shall constitute of least 2 FOR votes to every 1 AGAINST vote. Unaminous consent shall be defined as not having any AGAINST votes. In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win."

===[[338]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 13:21, 28 November 2006 (EST).

Nomicapolis is hereby defined as an ongoing game divided into rounds of play.

Any use of the word "winner" in the Nomicapolis ruleset should be taken to mean "winner of a round of play."

A "round of play" is defined as a period of Nomicapolis participation ending when a winner is determined.

When a round of play ends, all players' scores are reset to zero.

Following the end of a round of play, a subsequent round of play shall begin.

===[[339]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

A Player may only gain or lose points as the rules then in effect dictate.

Current ruleset

Shivan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:59:06 GMT

Shivan: /* 326 */

This is the current ruleset. Any changes to this must be approved as outlined within the ruleset. To propose any change to this ruleset please go to the [[Proposals]] page and follow the instructions there. If there is any inconsistency between this list and individual rules pages, the individual rules as displayed on their respective pages shall prevail. Please update this page with any recent changes to the rules as outlined on the proposal page. See the category '''[[:Category:Current rule|Current rule]]''' for a up-to-date list of all the current rules.

==Immutable Rules==
===[[101]]===
All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect whenever a game begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable).

===[[102]]===
Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.

===[[103]]===
A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)

===[[104]]===
All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

===[[106]]===
All proposed rule-changes shall be written down before they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.

===[[107]]===
No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule-change may have retroactive application.

===[[108]]===
Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the proposal to amend or repeal the amendment.

===[[109]]===
Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among the eligible voters. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.

===[[110]]===
In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

===[[111]]===
If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

===[[112]]===
The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.

===[[113]]===
A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

===[[114]]===
There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule-changes must never become completely impermissible.

===[[115]]===
Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule.

===[[116]]===
Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.

==Mutable Rules==

===[[205]]===
An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.

===[[206]]===
When a proposed rule-change is defeated, the player who proposed it loses 10 points.

===[[207]]===
Each player always has exactly one vote.

===[[208]]===
The winner is the first player to achieve 200 (positive) points.

===[[210]]===
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.

===[[302]]===

Players are limited to one Nomicapolis account in play. A new player may join by registering an account and then adding themselves to the census. A player may leave be removing themselves from the census. If a player who has left the game wishes to rejoin, they may do so, but they will start as a brand new player.

===[[303]]===

1. When a rule is proposed, there will be a period of three days of debate until it may be voted on.

1.1 If any player requests it, the debate time will be extended until this player is satisfied or they have abandoned the discussion.

1.1.1 This objection time may be overridden at anytime by the player who proposed the rule thus bringing the proposal straight to a vote.

1.1.2 If three days have elapsed and there is already votes registered for a proposal, no player may extend debate time, including the player who proposed it.

1.2 The proposing player may declare the proposal ready for vote before the three days have elapsed.

2. No player may modify the article page of a proposal while a vote is being conducted on that proposal, except to place a protection on the page.

3. If a rule gains the number of "for" votes required to pass or the number of "against" votes required to be defeated, any player may declare an end to voting on the proposal. If voting ends on a passing proposal, the player who declared the vote ended must immediately make the proposed change to the published ruleset. If voting ends on a defeated proposal, no player may add it to the ruleset.

===[[304]]===

Quorum for a vote shall be no fewer than 2 players.

===[[306]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 22:26, 12 April 2006 (PDT).

1. In order for a proposal to be "proposed in the proper way" and thus satisfy rule [[104]]/[[105]], it must contain the following elements:

:a) The correct number; i.e. the next number in the sequence.
:b) Verbiage that creates an actual or potential change to Nomicapolis play.
:c) The user name of the proposer. This should follow the proposal number and precede the text of the proposal in the format used in the proposal of this rule.
:d) Each numbered rule change proposal must have its own Nomicapolis article page and discussion page with the proposal number as the title of the page.

2. If a player believes that a rule was not proposed in the proper way, and/or was proposed in an improper way, he should create a section in the discussion page for that rule headed "Improper Proposal". Following the header, the player should state his reasons why he believes the proposal is not proper. Players may then vote on whether the proposal is proper.

:a) A claim of improper proposal must be made before the proposal is declared to have passed or failed.
:b) The rules for voting on claims of improper proposal and determining whether the claim passes or fails shall be the same as the rules for voting on and determining whether mutable rule changes pass or fail at the time the claim is made.
:c) If a claim of improper proposal passes, then the proposed rule is discarded without completion of a proposal vote. The proposer loses points as if his proposal had been voted down. If the claim fails, the vote on the proposal continues as usual.
:d) When a claim of improper proposal passes or fails, the claimant and voters in the claim action gain or lose half as many points as they would have had the claim been a proposal vote with a number equal to the proposal number of the proposal in question.
:e) A player may not make a claim of improper proposal against a proposal he/she originated.

===[[307]]===

This is a proposal to repeal rule [[202]]. Upon acceptance, rule [[202]] shall be removed from the rule set.

===[[308]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[201]] is amended to read, in entirety, "A player may propose a rule change at any time. Each player begins the game with 0 points."

===[[311]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[203]] is hereby amended to read, in entirety:

"A rule-change is adopted if and only if a simple majority of those voting on the rule change vote 'For' the proposal. This rule defers to rule [[304]]."

===[[312]]===

Proposed by Applejuicefool

Rule [[211]] is hereby repealed.

===[[314]]===

Proposed by --Shivan 12:15, 6 November 2006 (EST)

1. Any player who has not voted on a proposal or debated on one within the last 14 days shall be declared inactive. 
1.1 If there have been no proposals to vote on since the player's previous vote, he or she cannot be declared inactive. 
2. A player's status will change from inactive to active after he or she has voted on at least one proposal.

===[[315]]===

Proposed by --Simulacrum 13:58, 10 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[209]] is hereby repealed.

===[[316]]===
Proposed by --Dayd 00:19, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[309]] is hereby repealed.

===[[317]]===

Proposed by --Dayd 15:54, 14 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[212]] shall be amended to read as follows: If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a rule change cannot be determined with finality, or if by a simple majority not overruled, a rule change appears equally legal and illegal, then the player with the most points is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

===[[319]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 16:45, 16 November 2006 (EST) 

This rule takes precedence over rule [[207]]

1. A player who is currently declared inactive shall recieve only ½ vote. 
2. All players that are declared inactive do not count against the total number of players for purposes of the quorum. 
3. When a player is declared inactive he or she loses 10 points (Gains 10 negative points). This cannot cause the player's points to go in the negative. 
4. When a player is declared inactive the census page shall be edited and refactored to account for the change in status.

===[[321]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:16, 17 November 2006 (EST)

The Judge of Nomicapolis will be voted for on the first of every month. The Player that recieves the most votes will become the Judge. In the event of a tie between 1 or more Players the Player that recieved the most votes first will become the Judge. The Judge will be responsible for resolving any and all problems with proposals and rules. The Judge will be expected to use their best judgement and resolve all problems within 7 days. The Judge may resign the position at any time. The Judge may be expelled with a supermajority vote. At any time there is not an active Player as Judge a special vote for a new Judge will be immediately conducted.

===[[322]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 22:14, 17 November 2006 (EST)

When a rule is passed the player that proposed it shall gain 10 (positive) points.

===[[324]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 12:13, 23 November 2006 (EST) 

No rule may mention a player's name.

===[[326]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tom Foolery|Tom Foolery]] 13:49, 23 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[313]] is hereby amended to read, in entirety:

#All debate on a proposal shall last between 24 hours and 14 days at the discretion of the person proposing the rule change. Said person is responsible for setting a debate limit at the time of the proposal by including the statement: "Debate will end for this proposal at **date and time**" in the "Proposer's summary and declarations" section of the talk page for that proposal.
#The person proposing the rule change shall call a vote at the end of the debate. The debate period can be cut short by the proposer with the calling for of a vote. Should the proposer fail to call a vote within 14 days, the proposed rule change shall be dismissed. If a vote is called, it will end when all registered voters, as indicated on the Census as of the time the vote started, have voted or when it has been 24 hours since the last vote has been cast on the given proposal.
#A vote will be called on a proposal by adding the following statement: "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on." at the beginning of the "vote" section of the talk page for that proposal.

==[[327]]==
Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:39, 24 November 2006 (EST)

A player can choose to abstain on a proposal. To do this the player shall cast his vote on ABSTAIN. Votes cast on abstain count neither for nor against the proposal in question. They do count for the quorum.

===[[328]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tom Foolery|Tom Foolery]] 08:56, 24 November 2006 (EST)

#The Judge shall make a judgement whenever called upon to do so by any active player.
#The Judge shall abide by ''stare decisis.''
#A new page entitled "Decisions of the Judge" shall be created to hold such decisions, and shall be maintained by the current Judge.
#The decision of the Judge can only be overruled by a unanimous vote of all active players, except the player who was Judge at the time of the decision in question.

===[[330]]===
Proposed by --[[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:46, 25 November 2006 (EST)

There exists a type of entity called "Citizen of Nomicapolis", a term which may be shortened to "Citizen" without the meaning being altered.

When this rule goes into effect, a number of Citizens is created equal to 5,000 for each active player, and 2,500 for each player whose status is other than "active."

New Citizens are not automatically added by this rule when new players join the game or when players gain "active" status. Citizens are not automatically eliminated by this rule when players leave the game or lose their "active" status. This rule provides for a one-time creation of Citizens, and this rule will not further affect the number of Citizens in the game.

Other rules may be adopted which will affect the number or nature of Citizens in the game.

The number of Citizens in the game is termed the "Population of Nomicapolis" or, simply, "Population." The Population shall be posted on the Nomicapolis main page. If the Population changes for any reason, this posting shall be updated to reflect the correct Population.

The Judge of Nomicapolis shall be responsible for calculating and properly posting the current Population. The preceding sentence of this rule defers to rules which assign this duty to another player.

===[[331]]===

Proposed by --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:51, 25 November 2006 (EST)

#Rule changes that transmute mutable rules into immutable rules may adopted if and only if the vote for the change is unanimous among eligible voters.
#As soon as a mutable rule is transmuted to immutable, it shall be moved to the immutable section of the current ruleset by the player declaring the vote ended.

===[[332]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:39, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Each active player will be allowed to have three (3) proposals active at any time. An active proposal is one that has first been proposed, secondly is in the debate stage or voting stage, and finally has not been passed or rejected.

===[[333]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:34, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Rule [[204]] is amended to read, in entirety:

"1. This rule applies only to votes for amendments to the Ruleset.
1.1 This rule does not apply to any point changes related to Rule [[322]].
2. The players who vote against against winning proposals shall receive 5 (positive) points each.
3. In circumstances when the player who proposed the rule change in question votes against it, they shall receive no additional points."

Should Proposal [[327]] be adopted an additional sentence shall be added as such:

"2.1No player choosing to 'abstain' from a vote shall be awarded additional points for that vote.

===[[335]]===

--[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:33, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Any Player may accuse another Player of a violation of the rules. The Judge will determine if the accused Player is guilty and, if guilty will determine the punishment. A Player found guilty may ask for a decision to be overturned. The decision of the Judge may be overturned by a unanamious vote, which the Judge and the accused Player will not be allowed to vote. The decision of the vote may not be overturned.

===[[336]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:04, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Rule 310 is ammended to read, in entirety:
"In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute of a greater number of FOR than AGAINST votes. A supermajority shall constitute of least 2 FOR votes to every 1 AGAINST vote. Unaminous consent shall be defined as not having any AGAINST votes. In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win."

===[[338]]===

Proposed by [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 13:21, 28 November 2006 (EST).

Nomicapolis is hereby defined as an ongoing game divided into rounds of play.

Any use of the word "winner" in the Nomicapolis ruleset should be taken to mean "winner of a round of play."

A "round of play" is defined as a period of Nomicapolis participation ending when a winner is determined.

When a round of play ends, all players' scores are reset to zero.

Following the end of a round of play, a subsequent round of play shall begin.

===[[339]]===

Proposed by --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

A Player may only gain or lose points as the rules then in effect dictate.

Template:Announcements

Shivan — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:57:05 GMT

Shivan:

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===
'''New rules:'''
* [[330]], is now a rule. It creates "Citizens of Nomicapolis". AWARDS: Applejuicefool +10, Tucana25 +5, Dayd +5
* [[331]], is now a rule. It ensures that immutable rules are separated in the current ruleset.
* [[332]], is now a rule. It limits the number of proposals a player may propose at a time.
* [[333]], is now a rule. It amended [[204]] to alter the way dissenters get points on passing proposals. AWARDS: Tucana25 +10, Dayd +10
* [[336]], is now a rule. It redefines "majority", et al, as the ratio between FOR and AGAINST votes. AWARDS: Shivan +10
* [[338]], is now a rule. It defines Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds. AWARDS: Applejuicefool +10
* [[335]], is now a rule. It sets up procedures to punish rule breakers. (Dayd +10, Tucana23 +5, TomFoolery +5)
* [[339]], is now a rule. It limits player point changes to those allowed by the rules (Dayd +10, Tucana25 +5)
* [[327]], is now finally a rule, It allows a player to abstain on a given proposal.

'''The following proposals failed:'''
* [[329]] failed to pass by lack of quorum. PENALTY: Applejuicefool -10.
* [[340]], a proposal regarding elected officials. (Tucana25 -10)
* [[344]], a proposal to redefine inactivity status. (Tucana25 -10)

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''

* [[334]], a proposal to amend [[303]].
* [[337]], a proposal to not allow inactive players to propose rules.
* [[341]], a proposal creating the position of Governor General and outlining their duties.
* [[343]], a proposal to ease restrictions on inactive players when the number of active players is low.
* [[342]], a proposal to set EST as the standard time for Nomicapolis.

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''
* [[345]], a proposal to transmute rule [[338]] to immutable status.
* [[346]], a proposal requiring proposers to vote for their proposals.
* [[347]], a proposal to introduce "Named Territories" within Nomicapolis.
* [[348]], a proposal to prevent similar proposals existing simultaneously.
* [[349]], a proposal to define who can vote in an election.
* [[350]], a proposal to define 'deceased' status.
* [[351]], a proposal to clarify the meanings of "vote".

'''A non-rule proposal has been made to elect a Judge per [[321]].'''
* [[Judge_Election|Special Election November '06]]
* [[Judge_Election1206|December '06 Election]]

==='''Meta-News:'''===
I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Talk:341

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:54:38 GMT

Shivan: /* Against */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 04 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


Hey, Tom! As requested, I'm commenting on your Governor General draft. [[317]] already determines who the winner will be in such a case as mentioned in your draft - So the GG's duty there would just be to "declare" that person the winner. The GG would not decide the winner. In fact, you might want to make this proposal an amendment to [[317]]. If it is your intention that the GG would determine the winner, then you could write that in, or if it is your intention that the GG would simply announce the winner, then you could import some of the verbiage from [[317]]. Personally, I think the "most points" winner is the way to go there.

As far as the 2-vote reward thing for the winner, that's a little complicated. I think we're going to need to introduce some kind of legislation defining Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds before we do that. That way, we can say "The winner of the round receives two votes on all matters in the subsequent round of play," or something. In fact, I've got an idea for that now. I'll introduce it, and you'll see what I mean [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Just thought of another snag. Look at [[104]] and [[107]]. Rule changes must be voted on. Since these are immutable, they would automatically take precedence over this rule. The GG wouldn't be able to simply enact rule changes without having them voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 23:17, 29 November 2006 (EST)

I have addressed the issue. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:15, 30 November 2006 (EST)

After this rule passes I will propose transmutation. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:08, 30 November 2006 (EST)

:Okay, but you realize that as long as this is a mutable rule (until it is transmuted), the statement that it takes precedence is ineffective against immutable rules, right? Also, take another look at clause 4...something wrong with it grammatically. Might be as simple as changing the first comma to a semicolon. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 07:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)

:: Clause 4 was the combination of two independent clauses, so a semicolon was the right choice, I was just in too much of a hurry the first time around to worry about it. As far as the immutable thing, this will just have to be an ineffective rule until it is transmuted. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:38, 30 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
Debate is closed this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:32, 4 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:30, 4 December 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:16, 4 December 2006 (EST); (I have the feeling that this position, as stated, is rife with possibility for abuse - nothing here saying he must name the person who actually won by the rules).
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 13:55, 4 December 2006 (EST) (I am against the 2-vote thing).
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 14:54, 4 December 2006 (EST)
#

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:344

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:20:32 GMT

Shivan: /* Against */

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> When it is fixed please remove these instructions by editing the page normally.



== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
Debate will end for this proposal on Monday December 4, 2006 at 12:01 AM EST.

This proposal combines elements from Rules [[314]] and [[319]]. It addresses concerns I have regarding the process of declaring inactive status as well as returning a player to active status. Rule [[111]] seems to suggest that players should avoid combining two or more rule-changes in one amendment, but there are no rules preventing proposals from amending or repealing multiple rules. If anyone can find evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to split this into multiple proposals, but this seemed easier. I have explained my reasoning for proposing these rule changes in other places, but I would be happy to expound upon them if anyone missed them the first time or would prefer I state them here for archiving purposes. Let me know. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:17, 1 December 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

As there seems to be no debate, I will open this to voting. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)



== Vote ==
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:15, 2 December 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:15, 3 December 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:02, 3 December 2006 (EST) (This is the same idea as [[337]])
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 11:19, 4 December 2006 (EST); (What Dayd said).
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 12:20, 4 December 2006 (EST)


__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:335

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:19:27 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This is to give some sort of punishment to breaking the rules. As of now nothing happens if you break the rules aside from the action being declared invaild. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:35, 26 November 2006 (EST) Gave some more info regarding it. Yes the Judge will Judge himself, but is still subject to a unanimous overturn. And yes you would end up getting double tapped with rule [[101]] so I'll change it to 10 points each. Wasn't sure if anyone was going to catch that. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:50, 28 November 2006 (EST) I changed the proposal again. Debate will end for this proposal at a later date and time. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:12, 29 November 2006 (EST)
== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


So what does it mean to break the rules? Currently, players must abide by the rules ([[101]]), so would any rule breaker be fined 40 points, because they broke [[101]] in addition to whatever other rule? Should this rule entail honest mistakes, or just intentional rule-breaking? At any rate, I would like to see some kind of clause about reversing the actions of the rule-breaking in addition to any point penalty. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:20, 28 November 2006 (EST)
:As per my comments above, I would instead prefer to see amendments to rules designating specific penalties (or a range of penalties to be assessed at the discretion of the Judge) for specific actions which violate those rules. Or, possibly, instead of a flat rate, say that the Judge has the power and responsibility to determine fair penalties for rulebreakers; these decisions would then become precedent (''stare decisis''). [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:02, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Also, the proposal mentions to 'brake' the rules. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 19:22, 2 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:05, 3 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:05, 3 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:56, 4 December 2006 (EST)
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 12:19, 4 December 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 18:34, 3 December 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:13, 3 December 2006 (EST)
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Template:Announcements

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:13:46 GMT

Shivan: /* '''Game News:''' */

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===
'''New rules:'''
* [[322]], is now a rule. It awards 10 points to players who propose rules that pass.
* [[324]], is now a rule. It prevents future rules from mentioning a player's name.
* [[326]], is now a rule. It modifies rule [[313]] for clarity and to force a call to vote.
* [[328]], is now a rule. It sets guidelines for the Judge.
* [[330]], is now a rule. It creates "Citizens of Nomicapolis". AWARDS: Applejuicefool +10, Tucana25 +5, Dayd +5
* [[332]], is now a rule. It limits the number of proposals a player may propose at a time.
* [[333]], is now a rule. It amended [[204]] to alter the way dissenters get points on passing proposals. AWARDS: Tucana25 +10, Dayd +10
* [[336]], is now a rule. It redefines "majority", et al, as the ratio between FOR and AGAINST votes. AWARDS: Shivan +10
* [[338]], is now a rule. It defines Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds. AWARDS: Applejuicefool +10

'''The following proposals failed:'''
* [[323]] failed to pass by simple majority.
* [[325]] failed to pass by simple majority.
* [[329]] failed to pass by lack of quorum. PENALTY: Applejuicefool -10.

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''
* [[327]], a proposal that allows a player to abstain on a given proposal.
* [[331]], a proposal to ensure that immutable rules are separated in the current ruleset.
* [[334]], a proposal to amend [[303]].
* [[335]], a proposal to punish rule breakers.
* [[337]], a proposal to not allow inactive players to propose rules.
* [[339]], a proposal limiting player point changes to those allowed by the rules
* [[340]], a proposal regarding elected officials.
* [[341]], a proposal creating the position of Governor General and outlining their duties.
* [[344]], a proposal to redefine inactivity status.

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''

* [[342]], a proposal to set EST as the standard time for Nomicapolis.
* [[343]], a proposal to ease restrictions on inactive players when the number of active players is low.
* [[345]], a proposal to transmute rule [[338]] to immutable status.
* [[346]], a proposal requiring proposers to vote for their proposals.

'''A non-rule proposal has been made to elect a Judge per [[321]].'''
* [[Judge_Election|Special Election November '06]]
* [[Judge_Election1206|December '06 Election]]

==='''Meta-News:'''===
I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Template:Announcements

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:13:23 GMT

Shivan: /* '''Game News:''' */

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===
'''New rules:'''
* [[322]], is now a rule. It awards 10 points to players who propose rules that pass.
* [[324]], is now a rule. It prevents future rules from mentioning a player's name.
* [[326]], is now a rule. It modifies rule [[313]] for clarity and to force a call to vote.
* [[328]], is now a rule. It sets guidelines for the Judge.
* [[330]], is now a rule. It creates "Citizens of Nomicapolis". AWARDS: Applejuicefool +10, Tucana25 +5, Dayd +5
* [[332]], is now a rule. It limits the number of proposals a player may propose at a time.
* [[333]], is now a rule. It amended [[204]] to alter the way dissenters get points on passing proposals. AWARDS: Tucana25 +10, Dayd +10
* [[336]], is now a rule. It redefines "majority", et al, as the ratio between FOR and AGAINST votes. AWARDS: Shivan +10
* [[338]], is now a rule. It defines Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds. AWARDS: Applejuicefool +10

'''The following proposals failed:'''
* [[323]] failed to pass by simple majority.
* [[325]] failed to pass by simple majority.
* [[329]] failed to pass by lack of quorum. PENALTY: Applejuicefool -10.

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''
* [[331]], a proposal to ensure that immutable rules are separated in the current ruleset.
* [[334]], a proposal to amend [[303]].
* [[335]], a proposal to punish rule breakers.
* [[337]], a proposal to not allow inactive players to propose rules.
* [[339]], a proposal limiting player point changes to those allowed by the rules
* [[340]], a proposal regarding elected officials.
* [[341]], a proposal creating the position of Governor General and outlining their duties.
* [[344]], a proposal to redefine inactivity status.
* [[327]], a proposal that allows a player to abstain on a given proposal.

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''

* [[342]], a proposal to set EST as the standard time for Nomicapolis.
* [[343]], a proposal to ease restrictions on inactive players when the number of active players is low.
* [[345]], a proposal to transmute rule [[338]] to immutable status.
* [[346]], a proposal requiring proposers to vote for their proposals.

'''A non-rule proposal has been made to elect a Judge per [[321]].'''
* [[Judge_Election|Special Election November '06]]
* [[Judge_Election1206|December '06 Election]]

==='''Meta-News:'''===
I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Talk:331

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:12:34 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This would make it easier to see which rules are immutable on the [[Current_ruleset]]. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:54, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 04 December 2006 (EST)
== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


Currently all Immutable rules start with a 1. Also on the [[Current_ruleset|Current ruleset]] page all the Immutable rules are listed in the table of contents and are located at the top of the page. I see no reason why we need this rule. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:52, 25 November 2006 (EST)

But it is possible to transmute rules, and per [[108]] they would receive a 300 level number. So a currently mutable rule, transmuted by a 300 level proposal would have a 300 level number and no indication in the current ruleset that it is immutable. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 17:41, 25 November 2006 (EST)

The rule would be moved to the immutable rule section of the [[Current_ruleset|Current ruleset]] retaining its 300 number. Also it would still have the immutable rule header on the rule itself. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:15, 26 November 2006 (EST)

This proposal is intended to make it easier to understand the rules for a new player. If we want to attract new players we will have to find ways to help them ease into the game, and this is one. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:02, 26 November 2006 (EST)

A good place to look for all immutable rules would be the category: [[:Category:Immutable rule|Immutable rule]]. It lists all rules that are immutable. [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 23:22, 27 November 2006 (EST)

I'm kind of on the fence about this proposal. It's not a huge thing either way. The pros: It would make immutable rules apparent at a glance (which they are already because of the "immutable" template or their position on the rules list). The cons: It would be a lot of work for somebody to go through and change all those rules. It would make searching for a specific rule harder (For instance, 377 is an immutable rule. When you type in "377" in the search box, it would no longer go straight to the rule, but bring up search results), UNLESS somebody did a lot ''more'' work and redirected all of them. And it could potentially cause some kind of snafu in the future. So I guess I'm against it. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:08, 28 November 2006 (EST)

I have made some changes to the proposal to better reflect what I was looking for, and to address an issue that had been brought up earlier about the transmutation of mutable rules. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:32, 29 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
Debate is closed this proposal must now be voted on. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:31, 4 December 2006 (EST)
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:29, 4 December 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:51, 4 December 2006 (EST)
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 12:12, 4 December 2006 (EST)
#



 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:327

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:44:56 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==

I feel that sometimes you are neither for nor against, but you still want to vote. Also this will make the game we have now more steamlined as proposals can be ended when all have cast their votes. If the player(s) who wish to abstain has no other method of doing it than not to vote, then all proposals take 24 hours longer to pass.

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

Excellent idea. Two qualms, one trivial, one a bit more important. Trivial first: Fix the first spelling of "abstain" in the rule. Not so trivial: Take a gander at rule [[311]]. The way your rule is worded, and the way [[311]] is worded, an abstention would still count as a ''de facto'' "against" vote. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:34, 24 November 2006 (EST)

I agree with Applejuicefool, this proposal should be an amendment to [[311]]. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:01, 24 November 2006 (EST)

:Dayd fixed the spelling issue. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 20:36, 24 November 2006 (EST)

What if it said that the vote of abstain would count toward the Quorum and toward Player activity. This rules supercedes 311. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:58, 25 November 2006 (EST)

See, I still don't think that would fix the problem. This rule doesn't directly conflict with [[311]], so superceding it wouldn't mean anything. What you need to do is say that abstentions count as votes for quorum and player activity, but do not count as votes for determining the outcome of the vote. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 20:48, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Or, change the proposal to be an amendment of [[311]], by saying something like; "A rule change is adopted if a simple majority of the total votes "for" and "against" are "for." Abstention is permissible, a voter who votes "abstain" counts toward quorum, but not towards determining majority." --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 21:35, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 
I in light of discussion I think I have to change the proposal quite a lot. I will have to ammend rule [[310]] first. I will propose an ammendment to rule 310, then this rule can be passed.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:01, 27 November 2006 (EST) 

There, now it is ammeded. "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on."--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 11:44, 4 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 11:44, 4 December 2006 (EST)
#

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]

#
__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:327

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:44:39 GMT

Shivan:

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==

I feel that sometimes you are neither for nor against, but you still want to vote. Also this will make the game we have now more steamlined as proposals can be ended when all have cast their votes. If the player(s) who wish to abstain has no other method of doing it than not to vote, then all proposals take 24 hours longer to pass.

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

Excellent idea. Two qualms, one trivial, one a bit more important. Trivial first: Fix the first spelling of "abstain" in the rule. Not so trivial: Take a gander at rule [[311]]. The way your rule is worded, and the way [[311]] is worded, an abstention would still count as a ''de facto'' "against" vote. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:34, 24 November 2006 (EST)

I agree with Applejuicefool, this proposal should be an amendment to [[311]]. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:01, 24 November 2006 (EST)

:Dayd fixed the spelling issue. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 20:36, 24 November 2006 (EST)

What if it said that the vote of abstain would count toward the Quorum and toward Player activity. This rules supercedes 311. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:58, 25 November 2006 (EST)

See, I still don't think that would fix the problem. This rule doesn't directly conflict with [[311]], so superceding it wouldn't mean anything. What you need to do is say that abstentions count as votes for quorum and player activity, but do not count as votes for determining the outcome of the vote. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 20:48, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Or, change the proposal to be an amendment of [[311]], by saying something like; "A rule change is adopted if a simple majority of the total votes "for" and "against" are "for." Abstention is permissible, a voter who votes "abstain" counts toward quorum, but not towards determining majority." --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 21:35, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 
I in light of discussion I think I have to change the proposal quite a lot. I will have to ammend rule [[310]] first. I will propose an ammendment to rule 310, then this rule can be passed.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:01, 27 November 2006 (EST) 

There, now it is ammeded. "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on."--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 11:44, 4 December 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
#

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]

#
__NOEDITSECTION__

User:Shivan

Shivan — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:42:20 GMT

Shivan:

{{Current number of points|10}}

Hello Everyone!

My real Name is Emil Elgaard. I am 20 years old from Denmark. Right now I study Chinese at Copenhagen Buisness School.

Proposals
[[314]] 
[[315?]] 
[[Minor rule]]

Talk:337

Shivan — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:20:02 GMT

Shivan:

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary]
Alright this was a major change from the previous proposal, but still in line with the old. Regarding inactive players and their privledges. Debate will end for this proposal at a later date and time. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:37, 29 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

I would like to see instead an amendment to [[314]] limiting inactive players to 1 proposal, with the proviso that making a proposal does NOT remove a player from the inactive list. That way, if they make a proposal, while they're inactive, they still have to suck up their 1/2 vote, whether it's their proposal or not. That way the game can restart if everyone goes inactive. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:23, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Couldn't we do away with the 1/2 vote thing since an inactive player is losing points for inactivity. What if a player could resume active status by proposing a new amendment. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:25, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Then inactive would be no change in status, except for the loss of 10 points. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 07:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)

The change of status would be that an inactive player could not vote at all until making a proposal.--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:05, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Oh, you mean that making a proposal would be the ONLY way back from inactivity. I don't think that's a good idea...if you start forcing people to make proposals, you end up with trash proposals ("The name of the game is now no longer Nomicapolis, but 'Bob.' All proposals must begin with the phrase 'Hail, Bob!'") [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:28, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Assuming no one else will vote for the amendment you mentioned, they will then have to lose another 10 points. Of course they may already be at zero. Something i just thought of, having a 1/2 vote is not going to be a punishment unless two inactive players vote on the same proposal (one for, one against), a 1/2 vote is just as good as a full vote. Anyway...not saying i will necessarily vote against it, just offering alternatives. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:41, 29 November 2006 (EST)
 
 
I don't really see the point of the proposal. Acording to the definition of inactivity ([[314]]) a player can become active by voting on a proposal. So not being able to propose something is a very small pentalty, since you can vote once and then the penalty is gone.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:19, 30 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 

 
=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:337

Shivan — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:19:19 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=1 Proposer's summary]
Alright this was a major change from the previous proposal, but still in line with the old. Regarding inactive players and their privledges. Debate will end for this proposal at a later date and time. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:37, 29 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

I would like to see instead an amendment to [[314]] limiting inactive players to 1 proposal, with the proviso that making a proposal does NOT remove a player from the inactive list. That way, if they make a proposal, while they're inactive, they still have to suck up their 1/2 vote, whether it's their proposal or not. That way the game can restart if everyone goes inactive. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:23, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Couldn't we do away with the 1/2 vote thing since an inactive player is losing points for inactivity. What if a player could resume active status by proposing a new amendment. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:25, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Then inactive would be no change in status, except for the loss of 10 points. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 07:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)

The change of status would be that an inactive player could not vote at all until making a proposal.--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 09:05, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Oh, you mean that making a proposal would be the ONLY way back from inactivity. I don't think that's a good idea...if you start forcing people to make proposals, you end up with trash proposals ("The name of the game is now no longer Nomicapolis, but 'Bob.' All proposals must begin with the phrase 'Hail, Bob!'") [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:28, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Assuming no one else will vote for the amendment you mentioned, they will then have to lose another 10 points. Of course they may already be at zero. Something i just thought of, having a 1/2 vote is not going to be a punishment unless two inactive players vote on the same proposal (one for, one against), a 1/2 vote is just as good as a full vote. Anyway...not saying i will necessarily vote against it, just offering alternatives. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:41, 29 November 2006 (EST)
 
 
I don't really see the point of the proposal. Acording to the definition of inactivity ([[315]]) a player can become active by voting on a proposal. So not being able to propose something is a very small pentalty, since you can vote once and then the penalty is gone.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:19, 30 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 

 
=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Template:Announcements

Shivan — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:08:05 GMT

Shivan: /* '''Game News:''' */

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===
'''New rules:'''
* [[322]], is now a rule. It awards 10 points to players who propose rules that pass.
* [[324]], is now a rule. It prevents future rules from mentioning a player's name.
* [[326]], is now a rule. It modifies rule [[313]] for clarity and to force a call to vote.
* [[328]], is now a rule. It sets guidelines for the Judge.
* [[332]], is now a rule. It limits the number of proposals a player may propose at a time.

'''The following proposals failed:'''
* [[323]] failed to pass by simple majority.
* [[325]] failed to pass by simple majority.

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''
* [[330]], a proposal creating "Citizens of Nomicapolis."
* [[333]], a proposal to amend [[204]], concerning points.
* [[336]], a proposal that redefines majority as the relation between FOR and AGAINST votes.

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''
* [[327]], a proposal that allows a player to abstain on a given proposal.
* [[329]], a proposal to require lower-numbered proposals to be dealt with first.
* [[331]], a proposal to ensure that immutable rules are separated in the current ruleset.
* [[334]], a proposal to amend [[303]].
* [[335]], a proposal to punish rule breakers.
* [[337]], a proposal to not allow inactive players to propose rules.
* [[338]], a proposal defining Nomicapolis as an ongoing game divided into rounds.
* [[339]], a proposal limiting player point changes to those allowed by the rules
* [[340]], a proposal regarding elected officials
* [[341]], a proposal creating the position of Governor General and outlining their duties.

'''A non-rule proposal has been made to elect a Judge per [[321]].'''
* [[Judge_Election|Special Election November '06]]
* [[Judge_Election1206|December '06 Election]]

==='''Meta-News:'''===
I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Talk:336

Shivan — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:07:31 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
To make my other proposal [[327]] possible, it is neccecary to ammend rule [[310]]. Basicly instead of defining majority as a percentage of total votes, it is now defined as the relation between FOR and AGAINST votes. The old definition used to be fine since there was only FOR and AGAINST, but since i am trying to implement the ABSTAIN vote this change is neccecary.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:22, 27 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but a vote can include more than a simple "for" or "against". What about a judge election, for instance? If we had a judge election in which there was more than one candidate, we wouldn't have "for" and "against", we would have contestants names, or "for" votes for individual candidates, but not "against" votes. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:38, 27 November 2006 (EST) 
But this is specifically mentioned in the rule:
"In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win.""--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Oops! Sorry, I missed that line. Looks good to me. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:34, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Sorry I am having trouble understanding the unaminous provision of this proposal could the proposer please clarify? -- [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 09:09, 28 November {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
:"Unaminous consent shall be defined as no votes not having any AGAINST votes." As Sim points out, this sentence is not grammatically correct. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:23, 28 November 2006 (EST) 
I corrected it now. Sorry for the misspell, the SP was needed ( :--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 16:10, 28 November 2006 (EST) 
No other comments it seems. "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on." --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:07, 30 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:07, 30 November 2006 (EST)
# 
 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
#
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:336

Shivan — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:07:02 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
To make my other proposal [[327]] possible, it is neccecary to ammend rule [[310]]. Basicly instead of defining majority as a percentage of total votes, it is now defined as the relation between FOR and AGAINST votes. The old definition used to be fine since there was only FOR and AGAINST, but since i am trying to implement the ABSTAIN vote this change is neccecary.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:22, 27 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but a vote can include more than a simple "for" or "against". What about a judge election, for instance? If we had a judge election in which there was more than one candidate, we wouldn't have "for" and "against", we would have contestants names, or "for" votes for individual candidates, but not "against" votes. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:38, 27 November 2006 (EST) 
But this is specifically mentioned in the rule:
"In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win.""--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Oops! Sorry, I missed that line. Looks good to me. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:34, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Sorry I am having trouble understanding the unaminous provision of this proposal could the proposer please clarify? -- [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 09:09, 28 November {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
:"Unaminous consent shall be defined as no votes not having any AGAINST votes." As Sim points out, this sentence is not grammatically correct. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:23, 28 November 2006 (EST) 
I corrected it now. Sorry for the misspell, the SP was needed ( :--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 16:10, 28 November 2006 (EST) 
No other comments it seems. "Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on." --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:07, 30 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 
 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
#
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:333

Shivan — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:04:10 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This proposed rule will prevent people from gaining twenty points by voting against their own proposal if they know it will pass. Also, I think players should not receive as many points as the proposee's gain or loss.

I would like to open this amendment to voting. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:01, 28 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]




== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
#--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 02:04, 28 November 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 08:48, 28 November 2006 (EST); (Reduces the quantity of points available. I'm for that).
#--[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 14:50, 28 November 2006 (EST)
#--[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 19:16, 29 November 2006 (EST)
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:04, 30 November 2006 (EST)


 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 14:41, 28 November 2006 (EST)


__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:330

Shivan — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:02:39 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This proposed rule would create "Citizens of Nomicapolis", our constituency, for whom we make rules. The idea is to give us a starting point for growth - either an "economy" or a simulated electoral system, or whatever we want. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:49, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Okay, in light of Shivan's comment below, I added a clause which assigns the population-tracking duties to the judge. This is intended as a temporary measure until we determine what route we want to go with the Citizens and devise a position better suited to this task. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:00, 28 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]
 
Do you have any ideas for where this would take us? I would be interested to hear them. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:31, 26 November 2006 (EST) 
Yeah do you have a long term plan with this?--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)

I mentioned a few possibilities in my statement/declaration above: We could use this as the basis of a Nomicapolis economic system (citizens could produce goods, etc.), we could work out some kind of system that would have certain segments of the population supporting certain players. This support could fluctuate based on our actions, and could have some kind of game effect - perhaps the population would "elect" a player to a certain position. Really, this proposal is just to give us a base to work with. Use your imagination - if this passes, we have a starting population of 52,500 Nomicapolitans that we can incorporate into our machinations! [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:49, 27 November 2006 (EST)
 
I think it could be interesting, but as I see we are quite limited. We have a clear limit on how complicated things can get. We have to do all of the calculations ourselves.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:40, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 08:53, 29 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 08:53, 29 November 2006 (EST)
# [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 19:15, 29 November 2006 (EST) ''(Just to see where this goes)''
# [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 20:20, 29 November 2006 (EST)
# --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:02, 30 November 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:336

Shivan — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:10:34 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
To make my other proposal [[327]] possible, it is neccecary to ammend rule [[310]]. Basicly instead of defining majority as a percentage of total votes, it is now defined as the relation between FOR and AGAINST votes. The old definition used to be fine since there was only FOR and AGAINST, but since i am trying to implement the ABSTAIN vote this change is neccecary.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:22, 27 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but a vote can include more than a simple "for" or "against". What about a judge election, for instance? If we had a judge election in which there was more than one candidate, we wouldn't have "for" and "against", we would have contestants names, or "for" votes for individual candidates, but not "against" votes. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:38, 27 November 2006 (EST) 
But this is specifically mentioned in the rule:
"In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win.""--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Oops! Sorry, I missed that line. Looks good to me. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 00:34, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Sorry I am having trouble understanding the unaminous provision of this proposal could the proposer please clarify? -- [[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 09:09, 28 November {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
:"Unaminous consent shall be defined as no votes not having any AGAINST votes." As Sim points out, this sentence is not grammatically correct. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:23, 28 November 2006 (EST) 
I corrected it now. Sorry for the misspell, the SP was needed ( :--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 16:10, 28 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 
 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
#
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

336

Shivan — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:08:53 GMT

Shivan:

{{Proposed amendment|310}}

Proposed by --Shivan 07:04, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Rule 310 is ammended to read, in entirety:
"In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute of a greater number of FOR than AGAINST votes. A supermajority shall constitute of least 2 FOR votes to every 1 AGAINST vote. Unaminous consent shall be defined as not having any AGAINST votes. In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win."

Talk:330

Shivan — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:40:41 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This proposed rule would create "Citizens of Nomicapolis", our constituency, for whom we make rules. The idea is to give us a starting point for growth - either an "economy" or a simulated electoral system, or whatever we want. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:49, 25 November 2006 (EST)
== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]
 
Do you have any ideas for where this would take us? I would be interested to hear them. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:31, 26 November 2006 (EST) 
Yeah do you have a long term plan with this?--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)

I mentioned a few possibilities in my statement/declaration above: We could use this as the basis of a Nomicapolis economic system (citizens could produce goods, etc.), we could work out some kind of system that would have certain segments of the population supporting certain players. This support could fluctuate based on our actions, and could have some kind of game effect - perhaps the population would "elect" a player to a certain position. Really, this proposal is just to give us a base to work with. Use your imagination - if this passes, we have a starting population of 52,500 Nomicapolitans that we can incorporate into our machinations! [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:49, 27 November 2006 (EST)
 
I think it could be interesting, but as I see we are quite limited. We have a clear limit on how complicated things can get. We have to do all of the calculations ourselves.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:40, 28 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 

 
=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:336

Shivan — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:18:00 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

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> When it is fixed please remove these instructions by editing the page normally.



== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
To make my other proposal [[327]] possible, it is neccecary to ammend rule [[310]]. Basicly instead of defining majority as a percentage of total votes, it is now defined as the relation between FOR and AGAINST votes. The old definition used to be fine since there was only FOR and AGAINST, but since i am trying to implement the ABSTAIN vote this change is neccecary.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:22, 27 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but a vote can include more than a simple "for" or "against". What about a judge election, for instance? If we had a judge election in which there was more than one candidate, we wouldn't have "for" and "against", we would have contestants names, or "for" votes for individual candidates, but not "against" votes. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:38, 27 November 2006 (EST) 
But this is specifically mentioned in the rule:
"In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win.""--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 
 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
#
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:Judge Election

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:43:01 GMT

Shivan: /* Vote */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
To debate and vote for a Judge. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:40, 25 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/Talk:Judge_Election?title=Talk:Judge_Election&action=edit&section=2 Add debate comments]


NOTE: The link above is messed up. Please fix, then delete this note (I'd do it, but I'm not sure how).

I humbly accept the nomination made by TomFoolery; thanks for your confidence, Tom. If elected, I pledge to listen to and consider input from active players before making my decision, to abide by the letter of the rules in question, and, where those rules fail to indicate a clear and straightforward decision, to take into account the betterment of Nomicapolis as a whole in forming my ruling. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 12:01, 25 November 2006 (EST)

I have fixed the link. Thanks Applejuicefool. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 13:09, 25 November 2006 (EST)



==Nominations==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/Talk:Judge_Election?title=Talk:Judge_Election&action=edit&section=3 Add Nomination]

I nominate [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:05, 25 November 2006 (EST)

==Vote==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/Talk:Judge_Election?title=Talk:Judge_Election&action=edit&section=4 Applejuicefool]
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:43, 27 November 2006 (EST)
#

Talk:330

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:39:13 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

Talk:332

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:31:01 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==

This proposal is to limit the ammout of proposals to help from overwhelming Players. Also it is to encourage quality over quantity in proposals. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:43, 25 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


I am for it. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 00:01, 26 November 2006 (EST)

This rule would be better after we have more players. Right now, it is not hard to stay on top of the proposals out there, and if we limit the number of proposals a player may have, we will drive away those players that like to remain very active. I certainly wouldn't want to play a game that would limit my activity. If you think a proposal is of poor quality, simply vote "against" it. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 07:55, 26 November 2006 (EST)
 
 
If there must be a limit, let is be more. At least 3.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:31, 27 November 2006 (EST)



== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# 

 
=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:22:48 GMT

Shivan:

Template:Announcements

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:22:30 GMT

Shivan: /* '''Game News:''' */

<div align="center">
<big><big>Announcements</big></big> 

[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=watch Watch] - [http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title=Template:Announcements&action=edit Edit]

</div>

==='''Game News:'''===
'''New rules:'''
* [[317]], is now a rule (by [[313]] - more than 24 hours since last vote). It amends rule [[212]].
* [[319]], is now a rule. It introduces three sanctions against inactive players.
* [[321]], is now a rule. It creates the position of Judge.
* [[322]], is now a rule. It awards 10 points to players who propose rules that pass.

'''The following proposals failed:'''
* [[318]] failed to meet quorum.
* [[320]] failed to pass by simple majority.

'''The following proposals are being voted on:'''
* [[323]], a proposed rule creating and outlining the position "Supreme Grammarian."
* [[324]], a proposal that prevents future rules from mentioning a player's name.
* [[325]], a proposal to require a super-majority to repeal a rule.
* [[326]], a proposal to modify rule [[313]] for clarity and to force a call to vote.

'''The following proposals are currently up for debate:'''
* [[327]], a propopal that allows a player to abstain on a given proposal.
* [[328]], a proposal to set guidelines for the Judge.
* [[329]], a proposal to require lower-numbered proposals to be dealt with first.
* [[330]], a proposal creating "Citizens of Nomicapolis."
* [[331]], a proposal to add an i to the number of all immutable rules.
* [[332]], a proposal limiting the number of proposals a player may propose at a time.
* [[333]], a proposal to amend [[204]], concerning points.
* [[334]], a proposal to amend [[303]].
* [[335]], a proposal to punish rule breakers.
* [[336]], a proposal that redefines majority as the relation between FOR and AGAINST votes.

'''A non-rule proposal has been made to elect a Judge per [[321]].'''
* [[Judge_Election]]

==='''Meta-News:'''===
I added the page '''[[Game-direction]]''' to the sidepanel right below the Main Page link as it seems to be our little meeting ground. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 02:46, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I made a logo. It should be appearing in the upper left-hand side right now. If anybody makes a better one, upload it.

Discussion and comments regarding the use of certain [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] are welcome on the [[Talk:Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|talk page]]. --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:12, 15 November 2006 (EST)

Proposals tutorial

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:20:36 GMT

Shivan:

{| align="center"
|-
| align="center"|<big><big>This is the '''Proposals''' page.</big></big>
|-
| align="center"|<big>Please follow the directions on this page in order to successfully propose a rule-change.</big>
|-
| align="center"|<big>For information on how to write a proposal the right way read the [[Proposals tutorial]].</big>
|}

'''Step 1:''' Read all of the [[Current ruleset|current rules]]. If you feel unsure of what you can legally do or if you want clarification or advice, then ask a current player by visiting the [[Census]] page.

'''Step 2:''' Write a draft of your proposal on your user subpage. To do this click on your username link at the top of the page and edit it to include <pre>[[/My proposal workspace]]</pre> and save it, then click on the new link on your user page and write your proposal. Before you save it please add {{tl|Draft proposal}} '''to the top''' of your draft.

'''Step 3:''' (''Not required'') If you want to do so, invite others to comment on your proposal before you move it to the main namespace.

'''Step 4:''' When you are ready for official discussion and voting of your proposal, move (by clicking on the move tab at the top of the page) your proposal to the lowest numbered empty page listed on this page. '''NOTE: The user sub-page that you moved will now redirect to the destination page, if you want to edit the sub-page again click on the redirect backlink at the top of the new page.''' See [[Help:Redirecting]] for more information.

'''Make sure that your new proposal has the Proposed rule box at the top of the page.''' If needed, add {{tl|Proposed rule}}. If you are proposing to transmute a rule see [[Nomicopolis:Rules and proposals header boxes|Rules and proposals header boxes]] for the particular box that you would need.

'''Add <nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:vote<nowiki>}}</nowiki> to the proposal's talk page.'''

==List of current proposals==
When voting is complete for each proposal, please change the box at the top of that proposal's page to reflect the decision reached.

# [[323]]
# [[324]]
# [[325]]
# [[326]]
# [[327]]
# [[328]]
# [[329]]
# [[330]]
# [[331]]
# [[332]]
# [[333]]
# [[334]]
# [[335]]
# [[336]]
==List of empty proposal pages==
This is a list of empty proposals. When submitting a proposal use the link at the top of the list and move the link on this list to the list directly above.

# [[337]]
# [[338]]
# [[339]]

==Proposal to elect a Judge==

[[Judge_Election]]

Talk:314

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:20:05 GMT

Shivan: Talk:314 moved to Talk:336

#redirect [[Talk:336]]

Talk:336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:20:05 GMT

Shivan: Talk:314 moved to Talk:336

314

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:20:05 GMT

Shivan: 314 moved to 336

#redirect [[336]]

336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:20:05 GMT

Shivan: 314 moved to 336

{| align="center"
|-
|
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10% 1em 10%;">
{| border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-top:5px Solid Pink; border-right:5px Solid Pink; border-bottom:5px Solid Pink; border-left:5px Solid Pink;"
|
{|
| <big>'''This is a proposal to amend rule [[{{{[[310]]}}}]].'''</big>
|-
| Please contribute to the debate or cast your ballot on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|discussion page]].
|}
|}
</div>
|}
<includeonly>[[Category:Proposed rule]]</includeonly>

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:04, 27 November 2006 (EST)
 
 
Rule [[310]] is ammended to read, in entirety: 
"In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute of a greater number of FOR than AGAINST votes. A supermajority shall constitute of least 2 FOR votes to every 1 AGAINST vote. Unaminous consent shall be defined as no votes not having any AGAINST votes. In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win."

Talk:336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:19:11 GMT

Shivan:

Talk:336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:18:28 GMT

Shivan:

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> When it is fixed please remove these instructions by editing the page normally.



== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
To make my other proposal [[327]] possible, it is neccecary to ammend rule [[310]]. Basicly instead of defining majority as a percentage of total votes, it is now defined as the relation between FOR and AGAINST votes. The old definition used to be fine since there was only FOR and AGAINST, but since i am trying to implement the ABSTAIN vote this change is neccecary.

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


Quick question: Is this up for vote already? Look at [[303]] and [[313]]. The way I read em, [[303]] requires 3 days of debate unless the proposer declares an early end to the debate. [[313]] says the debate will last at least 24 hours. So since [[303]] takes precedence (c.f. [[210]]), we need to wait 3 days unless Shivan cuts it short. Is my reasoning faulty? [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 14:38, 25 November 2006 (EST)

I'm opposed to this because i think this proposal makes the game less interesting as well as being easily circumvented. Say I make a proposal that the member who drafted proposal 345 shall henforce be known as king of wikiville. i'm not saying...im just saying... (oh...and i like hitting the sig w/ timestamp better than calculating EST) One more thing, did i do something incorrectly causing this page to ask me to do something with templates...if so i don't know how to do such a thing and would appreciate guidance. Thank You
--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 23:44, 25 November 2006 (EST)

By [[303]] this proposal should be up for vote at 12:13 today, unless [[User:Shivan|Shivan]] calls a vote, We cannot vote before then. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:10, 26 November 2006 (EST)

We have met the time constraints of [[303]], I am voting. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 14:02, 26 November 2006 (EST)
 
None has anything to add exept for the vote thing on this one, so I vote now! --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:24, 27 November 2006 (EST)



== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 14:03, 26 November 2006 (EST)
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:25, 27 November 2006 (EST)
# 

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 17:37, 26 November 2006 (EST)
# 

__NOEDITSECTION__

336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:12:14 GMT

Shivan:

336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:11:31 GMT

Shivan:

{| align="center"
|-
|
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10% 1em 10%;">
{| border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-top:5px Solid Pink; border-right:5px Solid Pink; border-bottom:5px Solid Pink; border-left:5px Solid Pink;"
|
{|
| <big>'''This is a proposal to amend rule [[{{{[[310]]}}}]].'''</big>
|-
| Please contribute to the debate or cast your ballot on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|discussion page]].
|}
|}
</div>
|}
<includeonly>[[Category:Proposed rule]]</includeonly>

Proposed by --[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:04, 27 November 2006 (EST)
 
 
"In a vote, the following definitions will apply for consent or failure: A simple majority shall constitute of a greater number of FOR than AGAINST votes. A supermajority shall constitute of least 2 FOR votes to every 1 AGAINST vote. Unaminous consent shall be defined as no votes not having any AGAINST votes. In a vote in which there are more than two options (for example, when there is an election for a title and there are three candidates running), the option which recieves the greatest number of FOR votes will win."

336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:04:25 GMT

Shivan:

Talk:327

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:01:38 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==

I feel that sometimes you are neither for nor against, but you still want to vote. Also this will make the game we have now more steamlined as proposals can be ended when all have cast their votes. If the player(s) who wish to abstain has no other method of doing it than not to vote, then all proposals take 24 hours longer to pass.

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

Excellent idea. Two qualms, one trivial, one a bit more important. Trivial first: Fix the first spelling of "abstain" in the rule. Not so trivial: Take a gander at rule [[311]]. The way your rule is worded, and the way [[311]] is worded, an abstention would still count as a ''de facto'' "against" vote. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:34, 24 November 2006 (EST)

I agree with Applejuicefool, this proposal should be an amendment to [[311]]. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:01, 24 November 2006 (EST)

:Dayd fixed the spelling issue. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 20:36, 24 November 2006 (EST)

What if it said that the vote of abstain would count toward the Quorum and toward Player activity. This rules supercedes 311. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:58, 25 November 2006 (EST)

See, I still don't think that would fix the problem. This rule doesn't directly conflict with [[311]], so superceding it wouldn't mean anything. What you need to do is say that abstentions count as votes for quorum and player activity, but do not count as votes for determining the outcome of the vote. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 20:48, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Or, change the proposal to be an amendment of [[311]], by saying something like; "A rule change is adopted if a simple majority of the total votes "for" and "against" are "for." Abstention is permissible, a voter who votes "abstain" counts toward quorum, but not towards determining majority." --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 21:35, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 
I in light of discussion I think I have to change the proposal quite a lot. I will have to ammend rule [[310]] first. I will propose an ammendment to rule 310, then this rule can be passed.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 07:01, 27 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
#

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]

#
__NOEDITSECTION__

336

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:56:01 GMT

Shivan: Added linebreak

{{Current mutable rule}}

Proposed by --Shivan 12:15, 6 November 2006 (EST)

1. Any player who has not voted on a proposal or debated on one within the last 14 days shall be declared inactive. 
1.1 If there have been no proposals to vote on since the player's previous vote, he or she cannot be declared inactive. 
2. A player's status will change from inactive to active after he or she has voted on at least one proposal.

Talk:323

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:39:07 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This rule creates the position of Supreme Grammarian (the grammar and spelling cop of Nomicapolis), along with provisions for nominating the SG, and his/her powers in-game. The purpose is to give a quick, non-intrusive way to resolve annoying grammar and spelling errors in the rules without having to go through the process of proposal/vote/change the rule number for each little typo. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:48, 21 November 2006 (EST)

Okay. I changed the proposal so that the SG would have the power to fix spelling/grammar errors summarily; such "fixes" can then be disputed and voted on later. I will bring this to a vote around 6 p.m. Central Time this evening, barring major new debate. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:53, 24 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

There should also be a list of rules that have already been checked. That way the new grammarian wont have to look though all of them.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 14:39, 22 November 2006 (EST) 

----
If the grammarium finds that a proposed rule has a grammarmistake, and correcting that mistake will not have any significant effect of the interpretation of the rule, then the grammarian may change it right away. He shall leave a notice that he edited the "minor mistake", if the proposer does not object the change is final.
This will allow quick correction of minor mistakes.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 14:39, 22 November 2006 (EST)

This is a good idea. I will probably tweak the proposal Friday. I request that debate stay open until that time (I'll probably come on and post a debate comment tomorrow just to keep it going until I have time to work on this). [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 16:43, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Still planning on editing this rule tomorrow once I get some time on my hands. Happy Turkey Day! [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 08:48, 23 November 2006 (EST)

I like this idea but am going to vote no against it because i would like to have a stipulation added that the SG cannot also simultaneously hold the position of Judge. I see no way that power could be abused currently, but it seems like a healthy safegaurd. Also, just to clarify, my vote will not affect WHEN (because i was not a member at the proposals inception) the quorum ends, but it will count in the final tally? --[[User:tucana25|tucana25]] 21:54, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 
I must agree with tuscana25, edit the rule so that no player can be judge and grammarian at the same time. Then you have my vote, otherwise I will vote against it.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:38, 27 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 18:49, 24 November 2006 (EST)
# [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:21, 24 November 2006 (EST)

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:26, 24 November 2006 (EST) (KISS - Keep it simple stupid)
# --[[User:tucana25|tucana25]] 21:55, 25 November 2006 (EST)


__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:323

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:38:52 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==
This rule creates the position of Supreme Grammarian (the grammar and spelling cop of Nomicapolis), along with provisions for nominating the SG, and his/her powers in-game. The purpose is to give a quick, non-intrusive way to resolve annoying grammar and spelling errors in the rules without having to go through the process of proposal/vote/change the rule number for each little typo. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 09:48, 21 November 2006 (EST)

Okay. I changed the proposal so that the SG would have the power to fix spelling/grammar errors summarily; such "fixes" can then be disputed and voted on later. I will bring this to a vote around 6 p.m. Central Time this evening, barring major new debate. [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 10:53, 24 November 2006 (EST)

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]

There should also be a list of rules that have already been checked. That way the new grammarian wont have to look though all of them.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 14:39, 22 November 2006 (EST) 

----
If the grammarium finds that a proposed rule has a grammarmistake, and correcting that mistake will not have any significant effect of the interpretation of the rule, then the grammarian may change it right away. He shall leave a notice that he edited the "minor mistake", if the proposer does not object the change is final.
This will allow quick correction of minor mistakes.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 14:39, 22 November 2006 (EST)

This is a good idea. I will probably tweak the proposal Friday. I request that debate stay open until that time (I'll probably come on and post a debate comment tomorrow just to keep it going until I have time to work on this). [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 16:43, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Still planning on editing this rule tomorrow once I get some time on my hands. Happy Turkey Day! [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 08:48, 23 November 2006 (EST)

I like this idea but am going to vote no against it because i would like to have a stipulation added that the SG cannot also simultaneously hold the position of Judge. I see no way that power could be abused currently, but it seems like a healthy safegaurd. Also, just to clarify, my vote will not affect WHEN (because i was not a member at the proposals inception) the quorum ends, but it will count in the final tally? --[[User:tucana25|tucana25]] 21:54, 25 November 2006 (EST)
 
I must agree with tuscana25, edit the rule so that no player can be judge and grammarian at the same time. Then you have my vote, otherwise I will vote against it.--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:38, 27 November 2006 (EST)


== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# [[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 18:49, 24 November 2006 (EST)
# [[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:21, 24 November 2006 (EST)

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 20:26, 24 November 2006 (EST) (KISS - Keep it simple stupid)
# --[[User:tucana25|tucana25]] 21:55, 25 November 2006 (EST)


__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:326

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:36:19 GMT

Shivan: /* For */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==

Clarification and the creation of a method of controlling discussion length and the calling of a vote.

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


Wouldn't this make a better amendment to part 1 of rule [[303]]? --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:30, 25 November 2006 (EST)

[[313]] would have as well, but it is its own rule, and thus, this is an amendment to that rule. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:23, 25 November 2006 (EST)

I have amended the proposal to include [[313]] and [[303]]. If this proposal is ratified, both of those rules will go away, and this will replace them. It now contains all of the parts of both of those rules, with some minor modifications (the same one's as before). --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:22, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Um...now it breaks rule [[111]] since it contains 2 amendments. If you want to amend [[313]] just start there and then afterward we'll amend [[303]]. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:01, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Now it is one rule change again, and I will propose the repeal of [[303]] if this passes.Thanks. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:09, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Wow...its almost like an i.m. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 11:16, 26 November 2006 (EST)

So now it is an amendment to [[303]] since it has part 4 and 5, but it is amending [[313]] instead. So it either should amend [[303]] or have part 4 and 5 removed. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:20, 26 November 2006 (EST)

I have removed anything close to [[303]] and moved it to a new proposal. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:26, 26 November 2006 (EST)

This is the final form of the proposal, please vote at this time. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:56, 26 November 2006 (EST)



== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:57, 26 November 2006 (EST)
#--[[User:Shivan|Shivan]] 06:36, 27 November 2006 (EST)
#

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:11, 26 November 2006 (EST)
__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:326

Shivan — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:34:14 GMT

Shivan: /* Debate */

== Proposer's summary and declarations ==

Clarification and the creation of a method of controlling discussion length and the calling of a vote.

== Debate ==
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=2 Add comments]


Wouldn't this make a better amendment to part 1 of rule [[303]]? --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 15:30, 25 November 2006 (EST)

[[313]] would have as well, but it is its own rule, and thus, this is an amendment to that rule. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 19:23, 25 November 2006 (EST)

I have amended the proposal to include [[313]] and [[303]]. If this proposal is ratified, both of those rules will go away, and this will replace them. It now contains all of the parts of both of those rules, with some minor modifications (the same one's as before). --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 10:22, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Um...now it breaks rule [[111]] since it contains 2 amendments. If you want to amend [[313]] just start there and then afterward we'll amend [[303]]. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:01, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Now it is one rule change again, and I will propose the repeal of [[303]] if this passes.Thanks. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 11:09, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Wow...its almost like an i.m. --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 11:16, 26 November 2006 (EST)

So now it is an amendment to [[303]] since it has part 4 and 5, but it is amending [[313]] instead. So it either should amend [[303]] or have part 4 and 5 removed. --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 11:20, 26 November 2006 (EST)

I have removed anything close to [[303]] and moved it to a new proposal. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 12:26, 26 November 2006 (EST)

This is the final form of the proposal, please vote at this time. --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:56, 26 November 2006 (EST)



== Vote ==
=== For ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=4 Add FOR vote]
# --[[User:TomFoolery|TomFoolery]] 15:57, 26 November 2006 (EST)
#

 

=== Against ===
[http://www.editthis.info/Nomicapolis/index.php?title={{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}&action=edit&section=5 Add AGAINST vote]
# --[[User:Dayd|Dayd]] 18:11, 26 November 2006 (EST)
__NOEDITSECTION__