On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 19:12, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Oops. With the consent of a majority of Llamas, I intend to amend the >>> Llama Party by replacing "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), >>> where X resolves to FOR or AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or >>> AGAINST, respectively." with "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA >>> (X), where X resolves to FOR, PRESENT or AGAINST, is a party vote >>> toward FOR, PRESENT or AGAINST, respectively." >> >> BobTHJ, do you object? I haven't seen your consent. >> >> Also, with the consent of a majority of Llamas, I intend to amend the >> Llama Party by replacing "A party vote endorses the party decision, or >> resolves to X if there is no party decision." with "A vote of LLAMA >> (X) resolves to the party decision, or to X if there is no party >> decision." >> >> --Ivan Hope CXXVII >> > Oops, sorry. Yes I consent to both these changes. > > BobTHJ
I make those changes. I won't bother recasting votes of LLAMA (PRESENT); I think it should be pretty clear now what they mean. (Also, psst: you're supposed to be voting LLAMA votes only, not SELL. Post a sell ticket and vote LLAMA (endorse filler), I guess.) --Ivan Hope CXXVII
