Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5806
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 19:17, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly >>> unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable >>> by Warrigal, who has no voting power emself. Also, Warrigal can't >>> object, due to not being a player. >> >> "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or >> AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively." >> Non-players can't cast valid votes, so non-players can't influence the >> Llama vote. Besides, BobTHJ can leave at any time. > > BobTHJ, your opinion? I don't want to think that the Llama Party was > terminated by accident. > Let it terminate. I'd be up for considering something similar in the future though. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5806
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly >> unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable >> by Warrigal, who has no voting power emself. Also, Warrigal can't >> object, due to not being a player. > > "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or > AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively." > Non-players can't cast valid votes, so non-players can't influence the > Llama vote. Besides, BobTHJ can leave at any time. BobTHJ, your opinion? I don't want to think that the Llama Party was terminated by accident. --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 5806
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, without objection, to terminate the Llama Party. It's clearly > unfair on BobTHJ to be stuck having eir votes potentially controllable > by Warrigal, who has no voting power emself. Also, Warrigal can't > object, due to not being a player. "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively." Non-players can't cast valid votes, so non-players can't influence the Llama vote. Besides, BobTHJ can leave at any time. (I ask that he either leave the contract or object to its termination.) Therefore, without objection, I intend to object anyway. --Warrigal, Communal Hat of Escher
