Just in case, I'm resubmitting this, PF:
The Caller has argued that the text in exhibit A, if enacted into a
rule, would conflict with rule 101 (iii) and rule 101 (v). The Court
takes it to be clear that the text would not reasonably be considered
to conflict with any other clauses of rule 1
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled "no VCs for Democratic
proposals", and set its AI to 3:
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by replacing the text
When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the
integer portion of the proposal's adoption index, and each
co-author
I withdraw my proposal "No free votes" from the proposal pool.
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We've used such forms of wording in the rules before. Adjusting slightly,
I suggest the following paragraph for your rule:
The voting limit of an eligible voter who is not a natura
I hereby register.
BobTHJ
(Just to make it official)
I hereby submit the following CFJ:
BobTHJ is an eligible voter on proposals 4947-4957
Arguments:
The rules do not state when a voter becomes eligible to vote on a proposal.
In fact, the rules do not state that any player is an eligible voter on a
proposal. Precedent dictates that only a player
BobTHJ votes as follows:
4947 - FOR
4948 - FOR
4949 - FOR
4950 - FOR
4951 - FOR
4952 - AGAINST
4953 - FOR
4954 - AGAINST
4955 - AGAINST
4956 - FOR
4957 - AGAINST
> 4947 | default timing | Zefram| 1* | 23Apr07 | D
FOR
> 4948 | rule restoration| Zefram| 3 | 26Apr07 | D
FOR
> 4949 | VC and VLOP decay | Zefram| 3 | 26Apr07 | D
FOR
> 4950 | initialise VLOP properly| Zefram| 3 | 26Apr07 | D
FOR
I spend 1 VC to increase Murphy's VPOP by 1 (thanks for the
always rapid CotC website update Murphy!)
-Goethe
I vote:
4947 | default timing
AGAINST (prefer timing orders).
4948 | rule restoration
AGAINST (upon reflection, agree with Maud).
4949 | VC and VLOP decay
FOR
4950 | initialise VLOP properly
FOR
4951 | protect voting limits
AGAINST (why not al
