On 1/12/20 4:12 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Votes inline: > > >> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran >> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal >> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the >> quorum is 4, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid >> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are >> conditional votes). >> >> ID Author(s) AI Title >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 8280 Murphy, Jason Cobb 3.0 Resolve the troubles v1.1 > AGAINST; I support letting each officer do this. > > >> 8281 Gaelan 1.0 Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2 > FOR, simply because I'm interested in seeing what happens. > > >> 8282 Falsifian 1.0 Let's do this the hard way v1.1 > AGAINST, for the same reason as 8280. > > >> 8283 Alexis 3.0 Ex Post Ribbon > AGAINST, but I can be convinced otherwise. Currently, all ribbon > definitions look either only at the present or at the past and the > present. This rule would have a ribbon definition look into the future > for the state of a rule. That makes me feel uncomfortable about it > working, and potentially sets an unwanted precedent. > > >> 8284 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Power > FOR. > > >> 8285 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Roulette > AGAINST. This proposal does not secure specifications of indeterminacy, > so a power-0.1 could potentially tamper with higher-power rules by > specifying data the higher-powered rule depends on as indeterminate, or > even tamper with secured switches. > > >> 8286 Aris 1.0 I Forbid Vetos! > PRESENT. >
I change my vote on Proposal 8283 to PRESENT. I change my vote on Proposal 8284 to AGAINST. I change my vote on Proposal 8286 to AGAINST. -- Jason Cobb
