coppro wrote:
> Proposal: alt.office.accountor.die.die.die (AI=1, II=0)
> {{{
> Repeal Rule 2181 (The Accountor).
> }}}
IMO we have this guy because the report defined by that rule is a
useful list of all the bits of the economy that a player might be
interested in.
ais523 wrote:
> I mean the first; and "without 3 objections" was one of the options I
> gave, so you need to show that there were three objections (in the
> contract's warped sense of objection), not just one. Just one of those
> loose ends that needs tidying up before we can finally put this case
Wooble wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If you don't propose and distribute those citrine repeals, I'll do it...
>> let's
>> get this ruleset shrunk (or at least propose it)!
>
> proto: adopt B's ruleset, then re-agorify it.
DO NOT WANT
Tiger wrote:
> I vote as follows, casting each vote 5 times if it's a Green decision
> and 3 times if it's a Red one:
FYI your VLOP is 5 for Green, 1 for Red, 2 for Purple.
Wooble wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> 6569 1 1.0 coppro GreenQuorum Busted
>>> 6560 1 1.0 coppro GreenAnjusty
>>> 6561 1 1.0 coppro GreenContests Should Reward Themse
Sgeo wrote:
>> ---
>>
>> ID: 6545
>> Title: Because E's Worth It
>> Author: coppro
>> AI: 3.0
>> II: 1
>> Chamber: Red
>>
>> Bestow unto Murphy the title of Hero of Agora Nomic.
>>
>> --
comex wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 4 c.
>
> wow.
You were down to 2 for a while.
Proto: At the beginning of each month, any player with <9 props
gains one and any player with >19 props loses one (reflecting the
memories of old glory/shame fading over time).
c. wrote:
> I think I may have forgotten to officially assign ID numbers for a
> rule or two in the past. Therefore, for each rule listing below
> (copypasted from the FLR), I assign the rule with the name listed the
> number listed. If the number is already assigned, this is INVALID.
> Otherwis
c. wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:30 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> and if 2029 is modified or repealed, it should be
>> via a scam that's powerful enough to modify it, probably with everyone
>> not involved in the scam try to stop it.
>
> It would be a fitting end for Rule 2029, but a scam to repeal a
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I interpret the status of the proposal "Pragmatize strict ordering"
>> as follows:
>>
>> * First attempt to assign ID number 6546 was unsuccessful, as the
>> wrong author was specified and this was promptly poin
I interpret the status of the proposal "Pragmatize strict ordering"
as follows:
* First attempt to assign ID number 6546 was unsuccessful, as the
wrong author was specified and this was promptly pointed out.
* Second attempt to assign ID number 6546 was successful, as the
first attemp
ehird wrote:
> 2009/11/1 Sean Hunt :
>> yuri_dragon_17 wrote:
>>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:53 PM, yuri_dragon_17
wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:01 PM, yuri_dragon_17
>> wrote:
>>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sat,
yuri_dragon_17 wrote:
> I become active, hopefully for a longer period of time.
IINM, this is the third time in a row you've declared yourself
active, without becoming inactive at any point in between. If
the Registrar's report got it wrong at some point (I haven't
noticed it doing so), then you
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 12:31 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>> I intend, without objection from any objection from any party to the
>>>> FRC and with its conte
Yally wrote:
> Registrar's Census
This is botching again when saved as an external file. This is
presumably a Thunderbird bug, but in any case, can you switch to
text-only for reports?
Tiger wrote:
> 2009/10/27 Geoffrey Spear :
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>>> Barring anyone removing a proposal already made distributable, this
>>> should make a complete list, right?
>> No, it doesn't include Distributable proposals that were removed from the
>>
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Dammit, and I just finished debugging the vote-recording script
>> a couple hours ago, too.
>
> Well, on the plus side you can stop recording people's Chamber and Rests
> and Extra Votes at the start of the voting period, a
coppro wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Proposal: More Voting Fun (AI=2, II=0)
>>> {{{
>>> In the fifth paragraph of Rule 2156, replace the second sentence with "The
>>> voting limit
>> This removed the word "initial"; is this intentional? Why "Fix
ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In
>> particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments
>> in the same case; there was certainly reasonable op
ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2698: TRUE
>>
>> I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments;
>> in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based
>> methods&q
BobTHJ wrote:
> Not that I think you've been unfair, but did you consider my argument
> for NOT GUILTY via implicit announcement? The NOVs were announced in
> the Insulator report, and by assigning them ID numbers I implicitly
> declared their validity. I think this does satisfy the requirement in
coppro wrote:
> I change my Title to Red.
Your what now?
Yally wrote:
> I guess 5 proposals and 2 CFJs for next week.
Ineffective, guesses must be submitted by the end of Friday.
Wooble wrote:
> Make the SHOULD into a SHALL in the Rulekeepor rule, since we have a
> Rulekeepor who obviously hasn't considered the implications of
> ignoring the SHOULD.
IMO it's worth making conceptual and mechanical duties separable
when the latter is busy enough (same reason I gave up maint
Pavitra wrote:
> Speaking of the stare decisis, we really should either get rid of that
> or appoint a recordkeepor to track it.
Anyone can recommend adjustments to rule annotations. Some elements
also end up getting explicitly written into the rules.
BobTHJ wrote:
> Remove the last sentence of R1504 (destroying rests from appealed
> judgements, no longer necessary)
I have a proposal floating around somewhere that would move
appeals of criminal cases into a separate rule. If that passes
first, then this would break something else in R1504 (al
BobTHJ wrote:
> Nevermind, I only had 3 rests as of the time of this distrbution. For
And this is why copy+paste is dangerous, and also why voting results
self-ratifying is a Good Idea:
$q = // long but valid SQL
$q = query($q);
$ct = pg_fetch_object($q, 0);
$caste_then = $ct->caste_then;
if (!i
coppro wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>>> 6525 O 1 1.0 coppro   Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â Janitor is Useless
>>> FOR; I play Debate-o-Matic to make this decision Democratic.
>> Your caste is Sav
> I cast all of the following votes 8 times each.
Your caste is Epsilon, so the additional votes are all ineffective.
coppro wrote:
>> 6525 O 1 1.0 coppro        Janitor is Useless
> FOR; I play Debate-o-Matic to make this decision Democratic.
Your caste is Savage, so all your other votes in this batch
were ineffective.
Yally wrote:
> I leave the Cookie Jar.
Ineffective, it has no provision for leaving (but you can add one
without party objection).
coppro wrote:
> Proposal: Guaranteed to Pass (AI=3, II=1)
> {{
> Increase the Power of Rule 104 to 4.
> }}
The hell it is. This would increase the amendment number.
> Proposal: Cruel and Unusual Punishment (AI=1, II=1)
> {{
> WHEREAS the Ruleset is so long that forcing someone to read it would
Walker wrote:
> Lest the entire economy fall under the control of a single
> entity, any change that would result in the holder of one or
> more of the dealer offices being entangled is canceled and does
> not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
Two or more, sure
ais523 wrote:
> --- On Tue, 20/10/09, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> From: Ed Murphy
>> Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2696 assigned to coppro
>> To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
>> Date: Tuesday, 20 October, 2009, 5:08 PM
>> ais523 wrote:
>>
coppro wrote:
>> 6541 1 2.0 Murphy Flowers for Wooble
> AGAINST. Should only apply to proposals in the Proposal Pool.
Ah, right, removing a proposal from the pool doesn't cause it to
cease being a proposal. (Why not? There's currently no mechanism
to put a removed proposal back
I wrote:
> Proposal: Clarify emergency distribution
> (AI = 3, please)
>
> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this text:
>
> If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active
> player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so
> Without 3
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was
>> trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't
>> discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran r
From: 0x44
To: spoon-disc...@nomic.net
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] No.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:05:47 -0700, Ed Murphy
> Having received 2 support, I appeal the judgement in question.
This fails as the judgment in question was IMPOSSIBLE. I purported to
change my posture to STANDING, but ru
ais523 wrote:
> And with 2 support, I do so.
NttPF
Walker wrote:
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it would be a lot
> easier for the new Promotor to catch up on Distributability of you
> stopped using conditional Distrib-u-matic spends.
Ssh, I'm trying to overload the system. (Seriously, though, there are
only 9 active first-c
Wooble wrote:
> As allowed by Rule 2166, I transfer 26 Rests from myself to the Lost
> and Found department.
I thought that was ruled not to work?
G. wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, comex wrote:
>> viii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
>>to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
>>but, if e wishes to ignore the game, such penalties shall
>>not unduly harass em.
>>
BobTHJ wrote:
> Just to look at the big picture here, it seems rather unethical to
> penalize officers for infractions such as these. I think back to
> coppro's term as Grand Poobah - e was never able to publish a single
> correct report (most contained 5+ errors), e failed to make some deals
> on
c. wrote:
>iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a
> binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound
> by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a
> party, the absence of a person's explicit, willful consent
No NoV because BobTHJ's dealing with a new kid right now, but CFJ 2684
still hasn't had an apology submitted yet.
Related: I've fixed the CotC DB to indicate which sentences were
assigned along with (or occasionally after) GUILTY, except for 2674
where woggle recused emself before re-sentencing.
woggle wrote:
> On 10/13/09 10:06 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I call for judgement on the statement "It is possible to submit a Call
>> for Judgement by sending a message to a Discussion Forum.", submitting
>> it to the Justiciar.
>>
>> Arguments: The Justiciar probably reads the discussion fora, at
coppro wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>> I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514.
>> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether
>> it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j
>
> remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these
> quorum games. though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not
> nice to counter by proposa
ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> (Only other standing judges are ais523 who initiated, and BobTHJ who
>> has rank 1. I'm going to keep doing this as long as people keep
>> forgetting to disqualify; determining conceptual conflict
c. wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> [If e.g. a report saying "X has either Y or Z widgets" is ratified, then
>> if X had Y widgets, then e still does; if X had Z widgets, then e still
>> does; if X had neither Y nor Z widgets, then th
R2215: s/that is effective/that it is thereby effective/
There are still 10 inquiry cases and 3 criminal cases requiring
judges, and we have all of 5 active non-supine players. Anyone
else want to jump in before the next rotation?
c. wrote:
> Heh, here's mine:
Is this for 2696 or 2698 or both? I'm throwing it in as gratuitous
arguments (already have done for Pavitra and 2706).
Mostly in case it affects c.'s mirror:
* matters.interest is now null for CFJs pre-dating IIs
* viewcase.php and format.php both display II whenever it's non-null
(Previously, these were "1" and "not equal to 1" respectively.)
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Also, oi, another revision to the Assessor scripts (albeit a
>> minor one).
>
> I do not believe that the effect on a programmer's ability to program
> the game state should be a valid reason why Agora should choose to
> sup
Tiger wrote:
> Savage: (Voting Limit: 0)
> -
> ə
> coppro
> The LNP
> The Normish Partnership II
> *The People's Bank of Agora
> IBA
CoE: The LNP was allegedly deregistered on Sat 10 Oct 12:35:05 UTC.
coppro wrote:
>> 6520 O 1 1.0 ais523 Open-ended duties are bad
> FOR x 12
>> 6521 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Flag Anarchy
> FOR x 12
According to my records, your caste is Savage, and Wooble is
Chief Whip. If you play cards to change your voting limit,
please remind me to add some/
I wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> Note that both of the above CFJs are Disinterested. I believe that this
>> is appropriate, since they appear to be trivially UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
>> respectively.
>
> Crap, how did I miss this change? Will review archives and patch the
> DB; the possibly-affected
Pavitra wrote:
> Note that both of the above CFJs are Disinterested. I believe that this
> is appropriate, since they appear to be trivially UNDECIDABLE and FALSE
> respectively.
Crap, how did I miss this change? Will review archives and patch the
DB; the possibly-affected CFJs are 2689-90,92-96
Pavitra wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I humbly request the CotC refuse the excess cases initiated above.
>
> That would effectively dismiss some of the charges; should the CotC have
> the power to arbitrarily impose an upper limit on the severity of
> criminal punishment? That sounds like a job
Sgeo wrote:
> [[A player CAN publish a Notice of Violation (with N support,
> where N is the number of valid un-Closed Notices of Violation e
> previously published during the same week, or by announcement if
> N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has
> br
Walker wrote:
> Chamber is a proposal switch, possessed only by proposals which
> are in the proposal pool or have an ongoing Agoran Decision to
> adopt them, tracked by the Promotor, with values Green
> (default), Red and Purple. In the same message in which a player
>
Walker wrote:
> NomicWiki has been updated as per my Ambassador duties. Any comments
> or requests for addition to the page are welcome.
Oh, and AgoraTheses should include
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-November/008338.html
for a Bachelor of Nomic
Walker wrote:
> NomicWiki has been updated as per my Ambassador duties. Any comments
> or requests for addition to the page are welcome.
PerlNomic no longer participates. LiveNomic used to (I assume the
recent claim to terminate/deregister the LNP were effective).
"The FRCommittee awards points
coppro wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:22, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I deregister the LNP.
>>>
>> Fails. The LNP is still a person for 7 days following c.'s departure.
>>
>> BobTHJ
> It is no longer a partnership regardless of whether c. is a party or not.
Why isn't it a part
Original Message
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [frc] Re: amicus curae
From: Ouroboros
To: Fantasy Rules Committee
This morning I received a package from the Library and Consolidated
Archives of the Fantasy Rules Committee, in response to a missive I
se
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I submit the following AI-2 proposal, "No Rest Multiplication":
>> {{
>> In Rule 2262, replace:
>> * Stool Pigeon - Indicate a player who has not been
>>indicated for this card within the
woggle wrote:
> On 10/3/09 11:30 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> In 2674a and 2674b, Walker and ais523 opined REMAND, the other three
>> panelists didn't opine on time. Overtime period is in progress;
>> Justiciar woggle can publish a Justiciar's Opinion of REMAND, o
ehird wrote:
> 2009/10/2 Geoffrey Spear :
>> I CFJ on: "The Short Logical Ruleset is neither short nor logical."
>
> Arguments: "Short" is a relative term. It is certainly short compared
> to its companion, the Full Logical Ruleset. It is also logical, i.e.
> it has meaning when applied logically
ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 13:05 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> 6515 O 0 1.7 ehird No
>> FOR (this should surprise no one)
> You really think it's good for Agora to exile one of its more active
> players for a minimum of several months?
Even
Tiger wrote:
> 2009/9/25 Sean Hunt :
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I act on behalf of Tiger to publish the following:
>> I publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2215, a power-1 rule, by
>> having made a public statement on a matter relevant to the rules (that e
>> acts on behalf of Tiger)
BobTHJ wrote:
> How does this not satisfy R2263(a)? Note the clauses of R2263 are ORed.
Also note R2263(c) doesn't require specifying which public contract
is enabling the action (though it's certainly a good idea to minimize
disputes).
ehird wrote:
> CFJ: {A player that "hard deregisters" (totally dissociating
> themselves from the game with eir R101(vii) right, as opposed to the
> action of deregistering) is a person.}
>
> Arguments: The rule paints it as a dichotomy: either you can
> R101(vii)-deregister, or you can continue
BobTHJ wrote:
>> 6498 O 0 1.0 c. I want to be Justiciar again!
This was democratized, you can vote on it if you want.
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Admitted. 6476 is hereby adopted:
>
> You already announced this.
But with the wrong vote tally (the voting period was not extended,
thus Wooble's vote was invalid).
comex wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> CFJ, disqualifying ais523: ais523 has amended the Fantasy Rules Contest
>> contract within the past 24 hours.
>
> I make this II-1.
It already was, or am I missing something?
> I intend, without 3 obj
Walker wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Charles Walker wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>> == CFJ 2689 ==
>>>>
>>>>
ais523 wrote:
> Arguments: With Notice didn't exist when the Points Party was created.
> See also the endless precedents about the First Speaker, and the strong
> implication of rule 1586; that using a rules-undefined term in a way
> that clearly indicates that it isn't meant to be a term in the r
Pavitra wrote:
> I too recommend OVERRULE/FALSE, in part because the original judge says
> so, and in part because if we don't use OVERRULE for cases like this,
> where the correct answer is as trivial and obvious as it could
> conceivably be, then why do we even have OVERRULE and AFFIRM as valid
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:34, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Voting results for Proposals 6476 - 6494:
>>
>> 6481 depends on the state of the PNP:
>> If the PNP has the non-c. text, then Pavitra and coppro vote AGAINST,
>>and 6481 fails (3 FOR, 2 A
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:34 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> You seem to be missing the point here. This is not a matter of what is
>> true and what is false. In this case, because of the way the rule is
>> worded, there are two possible ways to interpret the rule. Both are
>> equally
ehird wrote:
> 2009/9/18 ais523 :
>> Arguments: So far there hasn't actually been a situation that needs
>> resolving. I recommend a null judgement. (As comex says, this CFJ was
>> submitted for anti-scam reasons (if a situation arises in the future a
>> judgement to reverse it could then be given
2674a/b - currently, only valid panelists are ais523, c., Murphy, Wooble
2679a - currently, only valid panelists are c., coppro, Murphy, Wooble
I wrote:
> woggle wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688
>>>
>>> = Criminal Case 2688 =
>>>
>>> a
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Wooble wrote:
>>
>>>> 6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
>>> AGAINST * 2
>> Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
>
> I'm pretty sure I
BobTHJ wrote:
> I recuse myself from this case. I thought I was Hanging? Was this a
> valid assignment?
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-August/023058.html
c-walker wrote:
>> 6495 D 1 3.0 coppro FIXME
> AGAINST
These are all ineffective, you were still inactive at the start of
the voting period.
Wooble wrote:
>> 6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
> AGAINST * 2
Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
Pavitra wrote:
> I vaguely remember a CFJ semi-recently about publishing NoVs, and
> whether someone was naturally capable of publishing an NoV since it was
> just a block of text and people can publish things, or if an otherwise
> unremarkable block of text was infused with the NoV-nature by the
coppro wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> I amend Contract B to read:
>> {
>> This is a public contract and a pledge. comex CAN make arbitrary
>> Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.
>>
>> If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir
>> discretion, so long as the total
woggle wrote:
> On 9/16/09 5:12 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
>> assign a panel to 2670a.
>
> I contest this. Arguments: I reasonably believed (and still believe)
> that CFJ 2670a does not exist and theref
Pavitra wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
>> assign a panel to 2670a.
> Was that the one that was recently ruled not to have been assigned even
> though the panel attempted to judge it? If so, UNAWARE would s
I wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal. The arguments indicate that
> the transfer failed, but the statement is "ais523 owns a Dunce Cap
> card" which should have been judged TRUE. I recommend REASSIGN,
> as coppro presumably just mis-remembered the statement as "ais523
> transferred a D
woggle wrote:
> On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688
>>
>> = Criminal Case 2688 =
>>
>> ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to
I also forgot to take CFJ 2680's favoring into account. This one was
clearly not illegal, though (I couldn't assign a favoring judge because
both were sitting, and Rule 1868 doesn't enforce favoring so strongly
as to restrict the order in which cases are assigned).
As one of the favoring parties
c. wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2) Cards affecting voting limits on individual proposals (because
>> the Assessor DB has no inherent provisions for dealing with that;
>> I should revise it to take a snapshot of quorum and voti
BobTHJ wrote:
>> 6476 O 1 1.0 Yally No More Paradox
> PRESENT
Your voting limit on ordinary proposals is 0 due to rests.
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:03 -0400, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> Note that I intentionally withheld an opinion, because my opinion
>>> would be to AFFIRM with an error rating. I'm still of the opinion that
>>> the conditions can not be AN
BobTHJ wrote:
>> 6476 O 1 1.0 Yally No More Paradox
> PRESENT
Your voting limit on ordinary proposals is 0 due to rests.
Pavitra wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proto-Proposal: Demolish the House
>> (AI = 2, please)
>>
>> [Replaces cards, effectively a few dozen single-use currencies, with a
>> few multiple-use currencies.]
>
> I'm not ready to get rid of Cards yet. I w
801 - 900 of 3637 matches
Mail list logo
