On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> *sigh* I predicted in typing that a pedantic moron in a hurry would
> question this one despite sending this to business and clearly stating
> what I was opining.
Oh apologies ais523 I totally meant to put a smiley on the end of that
paragraph :).
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 17:21 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/11/2 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> > 2009/11/1 Sean Hunt :
> >> Proposal: Dead Contracts (AI=2, II=1)
> >> (...)
> >> -copproh
> >>
> > What's up with tacking on extra letters to your name?
> >
> Just in case it would cause something weird to h
I interpret the status of the proposal "Pragmatize strict ordering"
as follows:
* First attempt to assign ID number 6546 was unsuccessful, as the
wrong author was specified and this was promptly pointed out.
* Second attempt to assign ID number 6546 was successful, as the
first attemp
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:08 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > Really? High AI doesn't automatically make things Democratic any more.
>
> Title: Majority Leader.
> Position: The Majority Leader CAN veto a specified ordinary
> decision in its
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> AGAINST, it's weird and messes with a deep-rooted concept in the rules.
>> Let's keep "by announcement" simple, pragmatic, and direct, please.
> The problem with 'by announcment' is that it is, in many cases, not by
> announcement. For instance, when you 'endor
Pavitra wrote:
For instance, it should specify that the triggering action must be by
announcement. This proposal would allow a private email acting on behalf
of someone to take an action that normally requires public announcement.
Hmm?
-coppro
Pavitra wrote:
AGAINST, it's weird and messes with a deep-rooted concept in the rules.
Let's keep "by announcement" simple, pragmatic, and direct, please.
The problem with 'by announcment' is that it is, in many cases, not by
announcement. For instance, when you 'endorse the office', your Pocket
Ed Murphy wrote:
I interpret the status of the proposal "Pragmatize strict ordering"
as follows:
* First attempt to assign ID number 6546 was unsuccessful, as the
wrong author was specified and this was promptly pointed out.
* Second attempt to assign ID number 6546 was successful, as t
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I interpret the status of the proposal "Pragmatize strict ordering"
as follows:
* First attempt to assign ID number 6546 was unsuccessful, as the
wrong author was specified and this was promptly pointed out.
* Second attempt to assign I
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM, ais523 wrote:
> Really? High AI doesn't automatically make things Democratic any more.
Title: Majority Leader.
Position: The Majority Leader CAN veto a specified ordinary
decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases
its Ado
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:01 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM, ais523 wrote:
> >> 6554 1 3.0 coppro GreenGuaranteed to Fail
> > AGAINST x my voting limit on this. If I can veto decisions by
> > announcement, I veto this one 10 times in a row.
> you can only vet
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I interpret the status of the proposal "Pragmatize strict ordering"
>> as follows:
>>
>> * First attempt to assign ID number 6546 was unsuccessful, as the
>> wrong author was specified and this was promptly pointed out.
>>
>> * Second attempt to assign I
Ed Murphy wrote:
* Each of these three attempts was accompanied by an attempt to
initiate a voting period, which was successful iff the attempt
to assign an ID number was.
This is also false; assignment of an ID number is not required for
successful distribution; the second distribut
Ed Murphy wrote:
For fantasy rule 283:3 (valid, +2.5 style), I award 6 x-points
and 5 y-points to coppro.
I haven't amended it yet.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> 6554 1 3.0 coppro Green Guaranteed to Fail
> AGAINST x my voting limit on this. If I can veto decisions by
> announcement, I veto this one 10 times in a row.
you can only veto it once before it ceases to be Ordinary...
--
-c.
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> For instance, it should specify that the triggering action must be by
>> announcement. This proposal would allow a private email acting on behalf
>> of someone to take an action that normally requires public announcement.
>
> Hmm?
Amend rule 478 (Fora) by appe
16 matches
Mail list logo
