Talk:338

From Nomicapolis

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

Proposer's summary and declarations

We've been talking about making this an ongoing game. Here's a proposal to do it. Note that although this defines a term in immutable and older mutable rules, it does not amend those rules.

Debate will end on this proposal at 8 p.m. (EST) Friday, Dec. 1. Applejuicefool 14:52, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Debate

Add comments One question and one suggestion. When someone is eventually declared winner, points will be reset. Will we then reset the rules to a ground zero set, or is there a point somewhere along the way that we can choose as a "ground zero+1". Or do we leave the rules as is and just keep playing. I am in favor of finding a point a few rules in where the unanamity issue and the 'turn' issue has been resolved. Someone mentioned giving double voting power for the next game. My suggestion would be to allow the winner to propose one rule that can only be voted down by a unanimous vote of the other players. Or something to that effect. --Tucana25 22:14, 28 November 2006 (EST)

If I understand your question (and I'm not sure I do), it is my hope that these issues will be covered by other rules. If this rule passes, I plan to nominate it for transmutation to immutable, so I put in only those things that I wished to have made into an immutable rule. Further modifications can be made with mutables. Applejuicefool 14:55, 29 November 2006 (EST)

I see your intentions now with the mutation. To clarify my question, do we start back at Amendment 301, or 305, or 310, 330, etc....--Tucana25 21:59, 29 November 2006 (EST)

That depends on other rules. If this rule passes, and no other rules pass that change the situation, then we would start the new round with the rules in play at that time. This rule requires that players' scores be set to 0. I believe Tom's 341 would create a Governor General position that could have the ability to reformat the rules following a win. Applejuicefool 23:10, 29 November 2006 (EST)

Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. Applejuicefool 22:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Vote

For

Add FOR vote

1. Applejuicefool 22:02, 1 December 2006 (EST)
2. --Tucana25 22:08, 1 December 2006 (EST)
3. --TomFoolery 08:03, 2 December 2006 (EST)
4. --Dayd 22:24, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Against

Add AGAINST vote