On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:26 PM omd wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote:
> > Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report
> > ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the
> > empty reports self-ratify tomorrow,
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:12 AM David Seeber wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
> 8178 - FOR
> 8179 - FOR
>
> I declare null and void any other votes cast on my behalf.
I'm afraid you have to do this in the opposite order. The "null and
void" bit presumably successfully retracted the ballots cast on
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote:
> Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report
> ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the
> empty reports self-ratify tomorrow, wouldn’t your vote still resolve to FOR?
> That is
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On the subject of community size - welcome back, o and omd!!!
Thanks :)
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:21 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> > On May 26, 2019, at 9:01 PM, omd wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> >> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE.
> >
> > ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I think it would be better to have some sort of proposal expedition
> mechanism again. It's more general and cleaner (no need to have
> another free-text decision type). The basic principle is to have a
> process whereby a person can mark a
I think it would be better to have some sort of proposal expedition
mechanism again. It's more general and cleaner (no need to have
another free-text decision type). The basic principle is to have a
process whereby a person can mark a proposal as urgent, and then to
process it in some special
A big question to me is whether such fixes should be retroactive?
Probably not - that's what ratification is for.So one option (an
even faster hotfix) is to allow anything that can be self-ratified to
also be changable in a non-retroactive manner with 3 Agoran Consent.
Maybe excepting votes!
On 5/28/2019 11:19 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:>> For such
a decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the
adoption index is 3.0.
I'm fairly sure there are more essential parameters than that (although
some of them may be implied by the existence of an adoption index?).
On Tue, 2019-05-28 at 11:03 -0400, ATMunn wrote:
> At most once per Agoran week, any player CAN, by announcement,
> propose a hotfix, specifying its text. When a player proposes a
> hotfix, an Agoran Decision to enact the hotfix is immediately
> started.
"an Agoran Decision into whether or
So with all this discussion and confusion about trying to ratify an
incorrect document to fix the gamestate, which frankly flew right over
my head, I thought it might be good to have a better method of fixing
the gamestate when an error has been made.
Right now, if a gamestate error appears,
I vote as follows:
8178 - FOR
8179 - FOR
I declare null and void any other votes cast on my behalf.
I also protest at the mistreatment of zombies and declare that I shall be
campaigning for rights of zombies as valued members of the Agoran community to
be respected!
:D
Signed,
Baron von
Oops, don't mind me - I see the parallel attempts now this is sooo confusing...
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> CoE: My conditional vote quoted below required the report
> ratification to go through before the voting period ended (I mis-read
> D. Margaux's ratification
13 matches
Mail list logo
