On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:28 PM, omd wrote:
> Proposal: secret votes redux (AI=3)
I retract this and submit yet another modified version, with the
paragraph starting with "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding"
replaced with:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, when submitting a ballot
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:25 PM, omd wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:08 PM, omd wrote:
>> Proposal: secret votes redux (AI=3)
>
> I retract this proposal and submit this modified version:
>
> Proposal: secret votes redux (AI=3)
I retract this and submit this modified version:
Proposal: secr
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM, omd wrote:
> I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the decisions to
> adopt proposals 7426-7436.
I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the decisions to
adopt Proposals 7418-7425. (These are earlier, obviously, but I
forgot about them.)
Proposal: Fix messy statements differently (AI=3)
Repeal Rule 2367 (Messy Statements).
Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing "inaccurate
or misleading" with "Indeterminate, inaccurate or misleading".
Amend Rule 2202 (Ratification Without Objection) by replacing
"incorrect do
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM, woggle wrote:
>> Oops, I also intend to destroy the new "!!!" with notice.
>
> I think R2166 permits you to destroy this promise (since you are its owner) by
> announcement. Incidentally, this would also simplify that CFJ.
Bother. I transfer it to the Tree.
I submit a proposal, titled "Igora":
Enact a power-1 rule titled "Alliances":
An alliance is a set of persons. Each person is in exactly one
alliance. By default, each person is in an alliance that
contains no other persons. A person CAN join an alliance With
the Suppor
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:12 PM, omd wrote:
> In case someone points out that I can destroy "!!!" with notice by
> cashing it, I hereby cash "!!!", retract the CFJ, make a new promise
> with title "!!!", text "!!!", conditions for cashing "this promise has
> existed for at least two months", and c
I hereby vote as follows:
On 5/20/13 14:40 , omd wrote:
> NUM AI AUTHOR TITLE
>
> 7437 1 Roujo(untitled)
ENDORSE THE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE
> 7438 2 ais523 Fix adoption index tracking
ENDORSE THE REGISTRAR
> 7439 1 woggle he -> e
FOR
> 7440 1 woggle When .,
On 25 May 2013 13:02, Charles Walker wrote:
> For a while I've thought about appending to R955 "This Rule defers to
> the Rule defining a particular decision in determining its outcome."
> I'll do that and then have the outcome defined in the new rule.
In fact I'll propose that now, since it's AI
