Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
coppro wrote: In other news, I announce the ceremonial shilling of the palace. Oh yes, and R2154 restricts election candidates and voters to Senators during an emergency session.
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting
Spitemaster wrote: Proposal: Dictatorship Scam FOR x 12 In future, please quote the proposal numbers.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
On Tue, 4 May 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: * The Senators were ais523, BobTHJ, comex, coppro, ehird, G., Ienpw III, Murphy, Phoenix, Sgeo, Taral, Tiger, Warrigal, and Yally (Registrar's report of April 25). Hrm, I'm a senator again? I'd better resign in disgust over something. Where's ehird?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Judicial Record week CFJs, part 1 (there may or may not be a part 2)
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: logical system where CFJ(foo exists). It would mean that the CFJ system was just an implementation of (stop reading now) The Game. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119174/ everyone here has seen this film, yes?
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6713 - 6720
On 05/04/2010 07:35 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Voting results for Proposals 6713 - 6720: H. Assessor, do you intend to resolve the Decisions for Proposals 6708-6712? -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6713 - 6720
coppro wrote: On 05/04/2010 07:35 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: 6713 OG0 3.0 Murphy Eliminate past repetitive wins PRESENT According to my records, you still have 2 rests from April 25, so your voting limit is 0.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Judicial Record week CFJs, part 1 (there may or may not be a part 2)
David Nicol wrote: On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: logical system where CFJ(foo exists). Â It would mean that the CFJ system was just an implementation of (stop reading now) The Game. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119174/ Â everyone here has seen this film, yes? I saw a pre-release preview of it, I don't think I ever got around to watching the final cut.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6713 - 6720
On 05/04/2010 01:36 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: On 05/04/2010 07:35 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: 6713 OG0 3.0 Murphy Eliminate past repetitive wins PRESENT According to my records, you still have 2 rests from April 25, so your voting limit is 0. I only gave myself one. -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: Whee!
coppro wrote: A player's voting limit on an Agoran Decision is fixed at the end of that Decision's voting period and thereafter CANNOT change, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. I'd still prefer to fix it at the beginning of the voting period unless the voter retracts and re-votes - though I may have to do a significant rewrite anyway if Chamber / Title get replaced by something based on your QCD fragment.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (WARNING! Proposal 6716 may pass if you don't vote against/democratise it!) OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote: 6716 1 3.0 coppro Purple Dictatorship Scam AGAINST. I intend, with 2 support, to make the decision on whether to adopt this proposal Democratic; and if there are any other intents to do the same, I support them, and do so if sufficient support has been reached. I hereby warn everyone reading this message that the proposal may quite possibly pass if not democratised, due to the existence of mechanisms to increase a player's vote limit on a particular proposal, and thus strongly urge people to support. I support. The proposal in question has already been resolved.
DIS: Re: BUS: Legal Term
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Reassign the name (AI=1.7, II=1, Distributable)
{{{
Amend each rule in numerical order by replacing each instance of REASSIGN
(case-sensitive) with REMIT.
}}}
The only rule where this would have an effect is Rule 911. However,
Rule 2277 (which contains reassigned, lowercase) should probably be
amended too.
