woggle wrote:
> On 10/13/09 10:06 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I call for judgement on the statement "It is possible to submit a Call
>> for Judgement by sending a message to a Discussion Forum.", submitting
>> it to the Justiciar.
>>
>> Arguments: The Justiciar probably reads the discussion fora, at
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 11:59 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523
> > wrote:
> >> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j
> >
> > remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these
> > quorum games. though I prob
coppro wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>> I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514.
>> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether
>> it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j
>
> remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these
> quorum games. though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not
> nice to counter by proposa
ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> (Only other standing judges are ais523 who initiated, and BobTHJ who
>> has rank 1. I'm going to keep doing this as long as people keep
>> forgetting to disqualify; determining conceptual conflict of interest
>> is not part of
On 10/13/09 10:06 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement "It is possible to submit a Call
> for Judgement by sending a message to a Discussion Forum.", submitting
> it to the Justiciar.
>
> Arguments: The Justiciar probably reads the discussion fora, at least
> occasionally,
I call for judgement on the statement "It is possible to submit a Call
for Judgement by sending a message to a Discussion Forum.", submitting
it to the Justiciar.
Arguments: The Justiciar probably reads the discussion fora, at least
occasionally, so is likely to receive the message. Although the r
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Coauthor rewards (AI=2, II=0)
> {{
> In R2261, replace
> When a proposal authored by a player is adopted and takes
> effect, that player earns a number of draws from the Change Deck
> equal to the Interest Index of the pr
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:51 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >> I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514.
> >
> > Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether
> > it worked or not
Murphy wrote:
> Walker wrote:
>
>> Chamber is a proposal switch, possessed only by proposals which
>> are in the proposal pool or have an ongoing Agoran Decision to
>> adopt them, tracked by the Promotor, with values Green
>> (default), Red and Purple. In the same message in
ais523 wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 16:30 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
I vote FOR on the decision on whether to adopt proposal 6514.
Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been judged whether
it worked or not (Murphy could resolve the proposal as ADOPTED right
now, AFAICT), whic
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 wrote:
> Thus forcing me to attempt to use a scam before it's been j
remind me to vote on such proposals in the future to avoid these
quorum games. though I probably would have voted AGAINST, as it's not
nice to counter by proposal the scam of someone who
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (Only other standing judges are ais523 who initiated, and BobTHJ who
> has rank 1. I'm going to keep doing this as long as people keep
> forgetting to disqualify; determining conceptual conflict of interest
> is not part of the CotC's job descr
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 14:28 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> If I have at least as many Distrib-u-Matics as undistributable proposals
> in the pool, then for each such proposal, I play Distrib-u-Matic to make
> it distributable.
Strange subject line. AFAIK, we're still waiting for the judgements to
come
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 11:35 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
> > coppro is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government: Lobbyist
> > }
> > Reason: Janitor weekly salary
>
> Fails, I wasn't the Janitor for last wee
15 matches
Mail list logo
