Talk:332
From Nomicapolis
I declare this proposal carried --Dayd 13:48, 29 November 2006 (EST)
Contents |
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. --Dayd 15:43, 25 November 2006 (EST)
I have changed it from 2 to 3 and will be bring it to an immediate vote. --Dayd 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Debate
I am for it. --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. --TomFoolery 07:55, 26 November 2006 (EST)
If there must be a limit, let is be more. At least 3.--Shivan 07:31, 27 November 2006 (EST)
I agree with Shivan. 3 would be a good number. Applejuicefool 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)
You don't mention inactive players. By 308 any player can propose a rule change. So an inactive player can propose an infinite number of rule changes provided that they do not vote and make themselves active again by 314. Since you have voted on this proposal, it cannot be modified, per 303, therefore I must vote against.--TomFoolery 11:09, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
- --Dayd 11:06, 27 November 2006 (EST)
- --Tucana25 19:50, 27 November 2006 (EST)
- Applejuicefool 00:18, 28 November 2006 (EST); (If we need to make a rule or amendment to prevent abuse by inactives, we can do that. Currently, in order to take advantage of this loophole, a player would have to go inactive (no voting or debate for 14 days), and then refrain from voting, and then when they come back, they get 1/2 vote. A pretty big penalty, imo.)
Against
- --TomFoolery 11:12, 27 November 2006 (EST)
