BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7144-7153
I vote ENDORSE MURPHY on Proposals 7144-7153. -G.
Re: BUS: (no subject)
On 1/13/12, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote: [...] I declare an intent to sit without objection. [...] I publish this list of Objectors for the above intent: *Turiski may or may not be an Objector, see CFJ 3150 *There are no other Objectors. If there are no Objectors to the above intent, I sit without objection. If Turiski is a player, I intend to flip em to Inactive without objection.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)
Arkady wrote: And the thing here is that total votes DO matter. There are Tv = Vf+Va voters, so if 1 person votes against (i.e. Va = 1) the highest possible adoption index that could be reached is (T-1). Thus by setting the adoption index greater than (T-1) a proposal can only pass unanimously (even if T is unknown). I think this whole line of discussion stems from implicitly considering different aspects of R1950: a) why it imposes limits on AIs at all (more convenient formatting of reports) b) why it imposes those particular limits (the practical difference between any disallowed value and the nearest allowed value is small enough that we don't lose much by disallowing it) Proposal: Grumpy Old Men (AI = 2, co-author = Arkady) Amend Rule 2357 (Wisdom of the Elders) by replacing 4294967296 with 8. [The current clause is ineffective due to Rule 1950.]
Re: BUS: (no subject)
If Turiski is a player, I intend to flip em to Inactive without objection. I object. [Not too sure where you were going with that] -Turiski
