|
Post by David G. on Apr 20, 2016 9:44:52 GMT -6
Here is the full argument. This law is by no means fully written. If we are going to have a seemingly major bill passed, I want it to be complete. It is a good idea in theory, but needs to be elaborated on. You can't just build on a law after it is passed, that requires more and more propositions which lead to refredums, which leads to a not complete chance of the addition even being added. I'll say okay to this, when it is fully planned out. This law will not have an affect with it's current length.
|
|
|
Post by Medecion on Apr 20, 2016 10:03:28 GMT -6
I know that the law isn't fully fleshed out, but I'm rejecting your veto because I think it's still a good idea. I'll endorse it once it's fully written out. It is seemingly the same thing as challenges with a bit of a different perspective. Maybe battles could be decided through challenges.
|
|
|
Post by David G. on Apr 20, 2016 10:05:50 GMT -6
It is seemingly the same thing as challenges with a bit of a different perspective. Maybe battles could be decided through challenges. As I have said previously, the law needs to be elongated before it can pass through me. These things need to be decided before a law is proposed. The law isn't even on the forum, and requires going to an external source to view. It seems unprofessional, and a proper proposition is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Medecion on Apr 20, 2016 10:11:28 GMT -6
Here is the full argument. This law is by no means fully written. If we are going to have a seemingly major bill passed, I want it to be complete. It is a good idea in theory, but needs to be elaborated on. You can't just build on a law after it is passed, that requires more and more propositions which lead to refredums, which leads to a not complete chance of the addition even being added. I'll say okay to this, when it is fully planned out. This law will not have an affect with it's current length. I agree with this. Either Osgwa will write out the law, or it will be talked about and written at Friday's meeting.
|
|
|
Post by David G. on Apr 20, 2016 10:13:45 GMT -6
Here is the full argument. This law is by no means fully written. If we are going to have a seemingly major bill passed, I want it to be complete. It is a good idea in theory, but needs to be elaborated on. You can't just build on a law after it is passed, that requires more and more propositions which lead to refredums, which leads to a not complete chance of the addition even being added. I'll say okay to this, when it is fully planned out. This law will not have an affect with it's current length. I agree with this. Either Osgwa will write out the law, or it will be talked about and written at Friday's meeting. The minute there is a reasonable size proposal in front of me, I will remove the veto. As for now, it remains.
|
|
|
Post by Medecion on Apr 20, 2016 10:22:26 GMT -6
I'm taking away my rejection of David's veto.
|
|
|
Post by Le Libertia on Apr 20, 2016 10:29:25 GMT -6
I am FOR David's veto. I don't think this idea is structured enough, and to me it doesn't make sense. Until the law is elaborated on, my decision stands firm.
|
|
|
Post by Faran on Apr 20, 2016 11:28:42 GMT -6
Agreed
|
|
|
Post by Le Libertia on Apr 21, 2016 7:16:17 GMT -6
Here is the full argument. This law is by no means fully written. If we are going to have a seemingly major bill passed, I want it to be complete. It is a good idea in theory, but needs to be elaborated on. You can't just build on a law after it is passed, that requires more and more propositions which lead to refredums, which leads to a not complete chance of the addition even being added. I'll say okay to this, when it is fully planned out. This law will not have an affect with it's current length. I agree with this. Either Osgwa will write out the law, or it will be talked about and written at Friday's meeting. I don't think we can have a meeting since it is a half day on Friday.
|
|
|
Post by Freedom on Apr 21, 2016 10:37:55 GMT -6
I endorse the updated proposal
|
|
|
Post by David G. on Apr 21, 2016 10:45:27 GMT -6
Keeping the veto. I don't want something like these to be decided by something as simple as a random number generator.
|
|
|
Post by Brotherhood of Osgwa on Apr 21, 2016 11:35:10 GMT -6
Keeping the veto. I don't want something like these to be decided by something as simple as a random number generator. What would you rather have?
|
|