Talk:331
From Nomicapolis
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This would make it easier to see which rules are immutable on the Current_ruleset. --TomFoolery 10:54, 25 November 2006 (EST)
Debate will end for this proposal at 12:00, 04 December 2006 (EST)
Debate
Currently all Immutable rules start with a 1. Also on the 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. --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. --TomFoolery 17:41, 25 November 2006 (EST)
The rule would be moved to the immutable rule section of the Current ruleset retaining its 300 number. Also it would still have the immutable rule header on the rule itself. --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. --TomFoolery 19:02, 26 November 2006 (EST)
A good place to look for all immutable rules would be the category: Immutable rule. It lists all rules that are immutable. 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. 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. --TomFoolery 15:32, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
Debate is closed this proposal must now be voted on. --TomFoolery 07:31, 4 December 2006 (EST)
For
- --TomFoolery 07:29, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 10:51, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- --Shivan 12:12, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- --Tucana25 13:28, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- --Simulacrum 21:34, 4 December 2006 (EST)
- Chuck 14:40, 6 December 2006 (EST)
Against
- --Dayd 20:47, 4 December 2006 (EST) (I don't like part 1...there's always 1)
