Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals

2012-06-06 Thread omd
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:27 PM, ais523 wrote: > I think the real reason to just tweak the AI rather than autofailing the > proposal is that less can go wrong. An effect that outright fails a > proposal without going through the normal mechanisms is likely to have > weird interactions with things;

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals

2012-06-03 Thread FKA441344
I create a proposal with adoption index 3, coauthor ehird, title {DEFENSE FIX Mk III}, and text { Create a power-3 rule with title {Voting Chambers} and text { Voting Chambers are a class of entity. Open Voting Chambers are a class of Voting Chambers. Ordinary is an Open Voting Chambe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nomical Security Proposals

2012-06-02 Thread FKA441344
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > FKA441344 wrote: > >> I submit a proposal with adoption index 3 and title {DEFENSE FIX} and text >> { >>  Amend Rule 2357 by replacing the sentence >>  { >>   Any Elder, with 4 Elder Support, CAN set the Adoption Index of any >>   Agoran Decision