Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29 Oct 2008, at 12:44, Ed Murphy wrote: I don't want to dump that into R2193 itself. Re-propose adding the relevant bit somewhere in R2105 and I'll support. Um, it's my Monster proposal. I'm Mad Scientist now. Actually it's not, since you forgot to make it disinterested. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On 1 Nov 2008, at 16:55, Ian Kelly wrote: Actually it's not, since you forgot to make it disinterested. Goshdarnit. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
comex wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5807 O 1 1.0 comex Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 SELL(2VP) I fill this ticket, specifying FOR. E already retracted it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On 29 Oct 2008, at 03:31, Ed Murphy wrote: 5814 O 1 1.0 ehird i think the whale is a noun AGAINST x 5 why? -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
ehird wrote: On 29 Oct 2008, at 03:31, Ed Murphy wrote: 5814 O 1 1.0 ehird i think the whale is a noun AGAINST x 5 why? I don't want to dump that into R2193 itself. Re-propose adding the relevant bit somewhere in R2105 and I'll support.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On 29 Oct 2008, at 12:44, Ed Murphy wrote: I don't want to dump that into R2193 itself. Re-propose adding the relevant bit somewhere in R2105 and I'll support. Um, it's my Monster proposal. I'm Mad Scientist now. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
ehird wrote: On 29 Oct 2008, at 12:44, Ed Murphy wrote: I don't want to dump that into R2193 itself. Re-propose adding the relevant bit somewhere in R2105 and I'll support. Um, it's my Monster proposal. I'm Mad Scientist now. I know.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
BobTHJ wrote: I leave the Llama Party. With only Warrigal as a party, it thus dissolves. This probably invalidates your votes of SLAMA(2VP) on 5803-05 and LLAMA(F) on 5806.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On 26 Oct 2008, at 03:42, Ian Kelly wrote: Nothing in particular. Just the scams annoyed me, and I'm feeling petty. The scams are pretty unrelated to the PBA itself, though; just because I was pretty satisfied with them and said sure to ais523 finishing it off later doesn't mean the PBA is an evil RBoA-destroying machine. (Also, I don't really have any official power as Coinkeepor, just more obligations.) -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On 25 Oct 2008, at 02:37, warrigal wrote: If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). If e joins the Llama Party e has less of a vote. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25 Oct 2008, at 02:37, warrigal wrote: If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). If e joins the Llama Party e has less of a vote. E has more of a vote, if eir votes are AGAINST. --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
warrigal wrote: On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25 Oct 2008, at 02:37, warrigal wrote: If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). If e joins the Llama Party e has less of a vote. E has more of a vote, if eir votes are AGAINST. warrigal is right (modulo eir lack of playerhood, I think). Remember, Llama votes are not resolved by simple majority, but by weighted majority depending on the proposal's AI. Relevant clause, for review: 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. A party vote endorses the party decision, or resolves to X if there is no party decision. The party decision is based on the ratio of party votes toward FOR to party votes toward AGAINST: if this ratio is greater than the Agoran decision's adoption index, the party decision is FOR, and if the ratio is less, the party decision is AGAINST. Thus, given AI = 2 and three parties, one of which votes LLAMA(A): * If both the others vote LLAMA(F), then the ratio is equal to the AI, there is no party decision, and the votes resolve to A F F. * Otherwise, the ratio is less than the AI, the party decision is A, and the votes resolve to A A A.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On 25 Oct 2008, at 16:04, warrigal wrote: E has more of a vote, if eir votes are AGAINST. But in other cases... -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5818 D 1 3.0 comex Require Clear Announcements AGAINST Why?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On 25 Oct 2008, at 21:19, Ian Kelly wrote: FOR x 5. Down with the PBA! Damn that evil thing with the qualities of not being incredibly exploitable re: rates! Seriously, what's wrong with it? -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5807 O 1 1.0 comex Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 FOR x 5. Down with the PBA! An AI 1 proposal can't amend a contract anyway.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5807 O 1 1.0 comex Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 FOR x 5. Down with the PBA! An AI 1 proposal can't amend a contract anyway. Except this doesn't amend the contracts in question. By the way, this proposal was my motivation for Secure contract adjustments. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT and hope nobody appeals it. The role of concrete rule-defined obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and support-requiring criminal cases. If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). --Warrigal of Escher
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:37 PM, warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT and hope nobody appeals it. The role of concrete rule-defined obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and support-requiring criminal cases. If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). ...and by force me to vote AGAINST, I mean prevent me from voting anything else, of course. --Warrigal, who has the honor to remain Escher's most humble and obedient servant
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5807-5821
comex wrote: 5808 D 0 2.0 Murphy Fix OVERLOOKED AGAINST, I don't really think the old version is a valid loophole, but this sure has the potential to be. I can see what it's supposed to mean (the rule breach it alleged was at least 200 days...) but it could easily be misconstrued as making OVERLOOKED inappropriate if the initiating announcement didn't happen to specify when the rule breach occurred. I agree that this could be clearer, but R1504(c)'s specific action ought to make such announcements ineffective. 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT and hope nobody appeals it. The role of concrete rule-defined obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and support-requiring criminal cases. I haven't gotten the two confused, myself. Those who have, is it the concepts that are confusing, or just the terms? Here's my favorite LARP war story, albeit second-hand. Context: the woman is a vampire, the lawyer was forced into her service. Mob We're gonna take her out and hang her! Lawyer Why? Mob Because she's an unholy demon from hell! Lawyer (realizing a golden opportunity) But that's not against the law. 5815 D 1 2.0 Pavitra The Registrar is an office again now. AGAINST Not that I have a strong opinion, but why?
