Intent needs to be voted against you fools! It has direct affect on the possibility of levying a CHoJ and is directly opposed to our history and traditions. The rules being absolute and punishing violations that are only ambiguously against them is important! Otherwise what fun would there be.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:12 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > For each proposal below, if I haven’t yet, I vote AGAINST on it. > > -Aris > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:21 PM ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I vote FOR proposals 8178 and 8179. > > > > On 5/27/2019 4:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > 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 6, 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 8178 Trigon 3.0 n't > > > 8179 D Margaux, Aris 2.0 Intent is Important (v1.1) > > > > > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. > > > > > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > ID: 8178 > > > Title: n't > > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > > Author: Trigon > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > > In Rule 2125 'Mother, May I?': > > > > > > replace: "CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID" > > > with: "CANNOT, CAN'T, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID" > > > > > > replace: "MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED" > > > with: "MUST NOT, MUSTN'T, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, SHAN'T, ILLEGAL, > > > PROHIBITED" > > > > > > replace: "NEED NOT, OPTIONAL" > > > with: "NEED NOT, NEEDN'T, OPTIONAL" > > > > > > replace: "SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED" > > > with: "SHOULD NOT, SHOULDN'T, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED" > > > > > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > ID: 8179 > > > Title: Intent is Important (v1.1) > > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > > Author: D Margaux > > > Co-authors: Aris > > > > > > > > > [Comment: I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless > > they > > > knew or should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law > > > calls a “guilty mind”).] > > > > > > In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text: > > > > > > “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:” > > > > > > Add the following text as paragraph 3: > > > > > > “(3) the perp likely did not know and reasonably should not be expected > > to > > > have known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or > > inaction > > > that is the reason for the levy;” > > > > > > And renumber the rest of the list accordingly. > > > > > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
