Talk:323

From Nomicapolis

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

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. 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. Applejuicefool 10:53, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Debate

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.--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.--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). 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! 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? --tucana25 21:54, 25 November 2006 (EST)

Vote

For

Add FOR vote

1. Applejuicefool 18:49, 24 November 2006 (EST)
2. TomFoolery 19:21, 24 November 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote

1. --Dayd 20:26, 24 November 2006 (EST) (KISS - Keep it simple stupid)
2. --tucana25 21:55, 25 November 2006 (EST)