Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Revamping movement

2018-08-04 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
NttPF. I'm not _trying_ to catch you out, I promise... -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On August 4, 2018 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Oh come on. That's cruel. > > I withdraw my proposal entitled "Revamping movement v3.1" if possible. > > I submit and pend the following proposal. >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Revamping movement

2018-08-04 Thread Reuben Staley
Oh come on. That's cruel. I withdraw my proposal entitled "Revamping movement v3.1" if possible. I submit and pend the following proposal. - Title: Revamping movement v3.2 AI: 1 Author: Trigon Co-authors: twg, Aris, G., Corona Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Revamping movement

2018-08-04 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Sorry, only just noticed this - you changed "force-feed" to "feed" in one place but missed the other occurrence. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On August 4, 2018 5:16 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I feel I've given ample time to submit notes on this version. > > I withdraw my proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: idk

2018-08-04 Thread Aris Merchant
8077-8081. The least controversial vote would be PRESENT on the first four and FOR the last one. -Aris On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 6:31 AM ATMunn wrote: > Ok. What are the proposal numbers? I will vote as you did. > > On 8/2/2018 6:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes and yes, so unfortunately

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: idk

2018-08-04 Thread ATMunn
Ok. What are the proposal numbers? I will vote as you did. On 8/2/2018 6:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Yes and yes, so unfortunately you can't start auctions by contract any more. Not that that would necessarily be the best method, anyway - I imagine you wouldn't have any use for the funds

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 3638 Rejudgement

2018-08-04 Thread Rebecca
No, it doesn't matter. Moving agora further from zero is a validity condition for a Notice not a defining one, just like reasoning On Thu., 2 Aug. 2018, 10:52 pm Cuddle Beam, wrote: > I move to reconsider. Now that it's not void because of the 4th argument, > it can still become void become of