Wooble wrote:
Have the quorum numbers been considering Yally active all this time?
Sgeo, but yes. I never caught it before because Sgeo always objected
before (so there was nothing for me to record), and only caught it this
time because the draft CotC report disagreed (at which point I checked
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
*6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived
Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions
Ordinary by default, with no defined voting limits on ordinary
decisions and no way to make decisions
On 08/02/2010 07:22 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
*6760 OP1 1.0 coppro Push From the Inside
*6761 OP1 2.0 coppro I Postulate an Assumption
*6762 OP0 1.0 Yally Clean Up Space
Also, to prevent
On 08/02/2010 07:20 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
*6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived
Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions
Ordinary by default, with no defined voting limits on ordinary
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
*6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived
Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions
Ordinary by default, with no defined voting limits on ordinary
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
*6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived
Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions
Ordinary by
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Actually, I take this back. What I told everyone was that the proposal
in question is AI-1 and every rule in question was power-2. So the
proposal causes no changes whatsoever to occur, but not for the reason
that
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 06:37, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Wooble wrote:
Having received no objections, I deregister Sgeo.
CoE: This is ineffective, as Sgeo became active on or about
21 October 2009 and
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Or, since everyone was under the impression (including Sgeo) that Sgeo
was inactive, you could just leave him off the list of players and let
it self-ratify.
Considering it was pointed out to me that he was not, in
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ on the following sentence, II = 1. A player awarding emself a
capacitor as defined by Rule 2289, counts as an erg transaction as
defined by Rule 2282.
It's kind of irrelevant, since you need to report on
On 08/02/2010 01:04 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
6779 P 1 1.0 coppro A Team Player
AGAINST [Will players who own the old (contestmaster) yellow ribbon
own this ribbon?]
No; Yellow Ribbons do not exist currently.
-coppro
On 08/02/2010 04:18 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
6779 P 1 1.0 coppro A Team Player
FPR
As opposed to AGAINT?
-coppro
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
Admitted. It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just
copy+pasted from the Promotor's initiation message.
I was wondering if Python was used to template it.
comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
Admitted. It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just
copy+pasted from the Promotor's initiation message.
I was wondering if Python was
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
Admitted. It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just
copy+pasted
On 8/2/2010 8:19 PM, comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
comex wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
Admitted. It's listed correctly at the
16 matches
Mail list logo
