Ed Murphy wrote:
Surprising no one, I cast each vote a number of times equal to my
voting limit on the decision in question.
6549 0 2.0 coppro Red More Voting Fun
PRESENT (why is this important?)
Cross the Floor currently doesn't work, so I decided we might as well
make i
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.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (If this
> happened a lot, then things would eventually tilt toward "by now you
> should be automating or paying more attention".)
Considering how often it happened the last time we had a non-automated
promotor, I'd expect that tilt to happen f
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 Themselves
>>> 6562 1 1.0 coppro Green
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 6569 1 1.0 coppro Green Quorum Busted
>> 6560 1 1.0 coppro Green Anjusty
>> 6561 1 1.0 coppro Green Contests Should Reward Themselves
>> 6562 1 1.0 coppro Green Cruel and Unusual
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I didn't come up with "it came in on a scam, it should go out on a
> scam" (IIRC I first heard it during a phone call with OscarMeyr a year
> or two ago) but, having heard it, I agree with it (provided that the
> scam clearly does work, i.e. does not rely on
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 and if 2029 is modified or repealed, it should be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
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Third option proto:
>
> Historical Preservation, AI-3:
> {{
> Create a new Power 3.1 rule entitled "Historical Preservation" with
> the following text:
> {{{
> Any proposal that would cause the amendment or repeal of Rules 104,
> 2105, or 2029 does not t
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The other option is not to bump anywhere, but create a new and very
> specific 3.9 rule for proposals: "while some other instruments of
> power 3 (ratification etc.) can set power>rule, proposals cannot."
Third option proto:
Historical Preser
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM, comex wrote:
>> You should bump R1698, too.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>
> What about 1551? It would need to be bumped to allow ruleset
> ratification (we should do that, incidentally), but then so would all
> the other rules
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM, comex wrote:
> You should bump R1698, too.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
What about 1551? It would need to be bumped to allow ruleset
ratification (we should do that, incidentally), but then so would all
the other rules that ratify (merely setting the threshold to 3 wou
You should bump R1698, too.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
---
---
---
Increase the power of Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) to 3.9
[Difference
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> 6551 1 2.0 coppro Red Dead Contracts
> PRESENT, ambiguous. "with no party such that the party's basis contains
> a player" or "with no parties, and whose basis contains a player"?
Didn't you say you were in favor of Agora's equi
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> For instance, it should specify that the triggering action must be by
>> announcement. This proposal would allow a private email acting on behalf
>> of someone to take an action that normally requires public announcement.
>
> Hmm?
Amend rule 478 (Fora) by appe
Pavitra wrote:
AGAINST, it's weird and messes with a deep-rooted concept in the rules.
Let's keep "by announcement" simple, pragmatic, and direct, please.
The problem with 'by announcment' is that it is, in many cases, not by
announcement. For instance, when you 'endorse the office', your Pocket
Pavitra wrote:
For instance, it should specify that the triggering action must be by
announcement. This proposal would allow a private email acting on behalf
of someone to take an action that normally requires public announcement.
Hmm?
-coppro
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> AGAINST, it's weird and messes with a deep-rooted concept in the rules.
>> Let's keep "by announcement" simple, pragmatic, and direct, please.
> The problem with 'by announcment' is that it is, in many cases, not by
> announcement. For instance, when you 'endor
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:01 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM, ais523 wrote:
> >> 6554 1 3.0 coppro GreenGuaranteed to Fail
> > AGAINST x my voting limit on this. If I can veto decisions by
> > announcement, I veto this one 10 times in a row.
> you can only vet
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> 6554 1 3.0 coppro Green Guaranteed to Fail
> AGAINST x my voting limit on this. If I can veto decisions by
> announcement, I veto this one 10 times in a row.
you can only veto it once before it ceases to be Ordinary...
--
-c.
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:08 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > Really? High AI doesn't automatically make things Democratic any more.
>
> Title: Majority Leader.
> Position: The Majority Leader CAN veto a specified ordinary
> decision in its
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Really? High AI doesn't automatically make things Democratic any more.
Title: Majority Leader.
Position: The Majority Leader CAN veto a specified ordinary
decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases
its Ado
21 matches
Mail list logo
