G. wrote:
Does this simple proto do what you want while leaving ongoing
promises as the default method?
Proto: Nullification Clauses
Amend Promise Rule by appending:
If a Condition of a promise is labeled as a Nullification
Condition, then its author or Horton CAN destroy the
G. wrote:
I stand up.
This doesn't work any more.
G. wrote:
And if there'd been a recent FLR, I'd know that.
For the record, agora.qoid.us has been kept up to date.
scshunt wrote:
While R478 does provide guidance for how multiple actions in a message
are to be handled, this does not apply in this case asregistering is a
side-effect
A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register by publishing a
ehird wrote:
On second thoughts I retract my objection. Did that stop being a thing
that is possible?
No. Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction), excerpt:
A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. consent) for
Yally wrote:
Any player CAN, with notice, declare war on any
other player by announcement.
by announcement should be removed; it's already part of the
dependent-action framework.
Whenever a player gains any points, a
number of points equal to the number of points e just gained divided by
Walker wrote:
To be valid, a Bet must
[snip]
c) be known only to the Better and the vote collector,
Dicey. Suggest not be sent to anyone other than the Better and the
vote collector, and let Collusion cover situations where a Better
illegally tells someone else that e has placed /
Turiski wrote:
2125 (and 478,
Fora) is one of the rules I don't really understand. If I understand
correctly, the reason that my action does not succeed in my intent
falls under the In particular... clause, right?
Indirectly, as a side effect of tripping over the rules on timing of
actions.
ehird wrote:
I find the precedent of CFJs two-nine-nine-one and two-two-nine-two
Typo.
(my number keys are broken) disturbing, and intend, with two support,
to Motion to Reconsider them.
There are already intents out there:
2991 - initiated by G., supported by Quazie, possibly supported
Walker wrote:
I submit this proposal:
{{ Not worth the paper it's not printed on (AI 1.7)
Amend Rule 591 (Inquiry Cases) by removing:
The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to
draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
and appending a new paragraph:
A
ehird wrote:
On 19 April 2011 20:11, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Here's the timing of relevant events. Â All times are UTC, and subject
to the usual minor fuzziness involved in e-mail transmission.
I change my vote on proposal 7017 to AGAINST, because it'd be
violating a false
Walker wrote:
I've made it a switch, but this requires a RttCN to prevent bloating
of the Docket.
How about making it tracked by the Rulekeepor (and specifying that it's
part of eir monthly report)? Then the FLR itself can count.
omd wrote:
but it does not say who is publishing it. I don't
think I can call a CFJ by stating A CFJ is called...)
Speaking of this argument re CFJs 2999 / 3002, where does Rule 591
require explicitly saying who is publishing it? (An inquiry case
CAN be initiated by any first-class person,
G. wrote:
I understand your other arguments but not this one. I'm arguing that
publish = announce = make a public statement. None of these are doing
a secondary action by announcement but all of these would bring
about a punishment for a false statement/announcement/publication.
But
ehird wrote:
On 19 April 2011 20:53, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
RttCN
?
rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
ehird wrote:
On 20 April 2011 01:17, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I didn't intend the statement-to-be-ratified to state that omd was
continuously registered for *only* that period of time, but *at least*
that period. Â If it fails, I'll re-submit with at least inserted.
I'd
omd wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
but it does not say who is publishing it. Â I don't
think I can call a CFJ by stating A CFJ is called...)
Speaking of this argument re CFJs 2999 / 3002, where does Rule 591
require explicitly
omd wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
CFJ 2972 already found that eir registration in early February 2011
succeeded.
By the way, if G.'s CFJ is judged true, it actually did fail.
What, 3003? I don't follow.
omd wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I interpret Rule 478 as requiring that in the definition of by
announcement:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed by
announcement, a person performs that action
Wooble wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
If possible, for each Proposal that I can vote on, I ENDORSE the last
person that will have voted on it when the voting period ends unless
that person is me, in which case I ENDORSE the
G. wrote:
I'd hesitate to throw out any of b-d. This fails, even without
further explanation, could be (and probably has been) used as a
courtesy when one is legally required to attempt an action which is
blocked by something else.
This interpretation is plausible, but I still think it's
Quazie wrote:
Do arguments presented to discussion have to be included in a cfj's
arguments?
The rules about arguments are limited to:
* 2205, limited to
- initiator when initiating
- (criminal cases) defendant during pre-trial
- (equity cases) parties during pre-trial (I
ehird wrote:
I Get Up on My Soapbox and say that points as an economy system is
Absurd, and that we should all wait for a Derivative of ais523's
Economic Proposal.
7000 3.0 omd Souls
AGAIN
I'm interpreting this as a reasonably clear typo of AGAINST,
especially in light of
7013 3 omd Ordinary Decisions
7014 3 omd United States of Agora
7015 2 G., ais523Promises
Bah, time to frob the distribution-parsing script again.
omd wrote:
I register.
Remember to sit up, in case ratification did paper over your
previous registration.
scshunt wrote:
On 11-04-05 11:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Timers
(AI = 2)
I'm all for ridiculously wordy legal text, but this is utterly ridiculous.
The goals (to make sentences cumulative, and to make time served before
an appeal count) are non-trivial (and the latter is still iffy
scshunt wrote:
I change my vote to/cast my vote for AGAINST any ongoing Agoran
Decisions to adopt proposals adopted by Yally.
^^
I don't believe there are any such proposals.
Tanner Swett wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:15 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
The AFO registers.
CoE: First, it terminated when contracts were repealed (the arguments
in CFJ 2761 apply equally
Tanner Swett wrote:
I stand.
You can't do that directly, you have to sit and then wait for the
next rotation.
Tanner Swett wrote:
Come to think of it, I sit, and set my judicial rank to 3.
Judicial ranks no longer exist (they were repealed along with
interest indices).
Walker wrote:
Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by inserting the
following after paragraph (b) and replacing the second (c) with
(d).
(c) If other rules attempt to define a method for determining
the outcome of a particular type of decision, then this
omd wrote:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
NUM AI SUBMITTER TITLE
6978 2.0 Murphy The Pear-Shaped Office
6979 1.0 Tanner L. Swett Killing Dragons Is Everything Around Here
6980 3.0 Murphy Timey wimey
6981
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I don't think they would be much more coherent if that hadn't happened.
I agree, although I'm working on a fix.
For the record, I'd be interested in further discussion of the Dragons
concept; there were
scshunt wrote:
On 11-04-01 06:35 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I intend (with the consent of Roujo and Wooble) to cause MRW and
Associates to intend (with Agoran Consent) to register.
I consent.
Roujo having
Walker wrote:
I publish a NoV accusing Wooble of breaking Rule 2158, a power 2 Rule,
by failing to judge case 2979 within the time limit.
I publish a NoV accusing omd of breaking Rule 2158, a power 2 Rule, by
failing to judge case 2980 within the time limit.
I call for judgement on both of
This proposal closes a number of loopholes pointed out during omd's
recent dictatorship (since repealed). Here's a version demonstrating
both things you asked about:
http://agora.qoid.us/rule/2324#587640
Walker wrote:
On 20 March 2011 02:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
1
G. wrote:
Causing the President to perform an ILLEGAL action is the
Class-6 crime of Misleading the Leader.
Personally, I was waiting for an Agoran Consent failure to publish a report
so that we could see if all Agorans who didn't support could be found
guilty of this. -G.
omd wrote:
It would be cool if the map were adjusted to conform to the Map of Agora.
I did try to make it roughly the same shape. If your ASCII-art-fu is
superior to mine, then by all means take a crack at it.
G. wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
I interpret modify as limited to changing an existing value, not
initializing an aspect that previously lacked a value.
Isn't this in direct conflict with a judgement about a recent scam
failure, where modify
Roujo wrote:
I vote FOR all of these a number of times equal to my voting limit.
Question: If I just say I vote FOR all of these, do I implicitely do
it a number of times equal to my voting limit?
Yes, Rule 2280 still exists.
Other question: Is there any reason for me not to vote up to my
scshunt wrote:
On 11-03-19 02:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
The Speaker CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take
an action that is not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE. If there is no
Speaker, then the player who was most recently Speaker (if
any) CAN, by announcement
scshunt wrote:
On 11-03-19 10:16 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
- if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case
clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating a
valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as one given
by at least one panel member
If agreements-as-persons doesn't work, then R2205(3) should be removed
(and (4) renumbered). If it does, then we may want to revive some form
of the equity case; to prevent the delays that plagued the old version,
I suggest assigning them to a panel of all players who are active as of
the
Wooble wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I deputize for the Assessor to publish the following:
Disclaimer: I have no idea whatsoever if the office of the Assessor is
actually vacant; this may have failed.
I'm pretty sure it isn't. In the
I wrote:
ehird wrote:
(this is bad and you should feel bad for proposing this)?)
I transfer a proposal from myself to ehird.
I transfer a /prop/ from myself to ehird.
I transfer a kilogram of coffee grounds from the Lost and Found
Department to myself. (Disclaimer: maybe not.)
Proto: Each week, randomly pick a rule and auction the ability to
make a one-word change to it with notice.
scshunt wrote:
On 11-02-14 01:37 PM, omd wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Create a power-2 Rule entitled The President:
The President is a second-class person and a player. A
first-class player CAN cause the President to take an
Here are my informal notes for getting Assessor caught up. Please
let me know if you spot any problems.
* Per CFJ 2941, my change to the List of Succession near the end
of the holiday failed for lack of ergs, so Proposal 6943 passed.
* Yally was already Pariah as of January 10, so eir
Per omd's request:
I wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 6928 - 6940:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
x6928 O0 3.0 omd
scshunt wrote:
* G.'s second scam attempt
- made all other players inactive
deregistered
- submitted a Proposal dubbed 6959
- assumed Promotor
- distributed Proposal 6959
- resigned Promotor
- made players active and offices postulated again
omd wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Per omd's request:
NttPF
Intentional, as (a) self-ratification may have mooted it anyway
and (b) the rest of the information could do with spot-checking.
omd wrote:
I don't remember the judgement as well as I should have, I guess... in
that case, doesn't the argument hinge on something as inconsequential
Not inconsequential if it, well, has substantive consequences:
as the format in which states are saved in the gamestate? ais523
seems to
Proto-Proposal: Rewiring the list
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2282 (Energy) to read:
Ergs are a fixed currency. Ownership of Ergs is restricted to
players.
At the beginning of each month, the following things happen, in
this order:
(a) All ergs and capacitors
omd wrote:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I interpret gamestate as including history (at least relevant
parts e.g. whether someone deregistered recently, and once that's
included, I see no good reason not to include all of it), and
ratification
omd wrote:
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to
mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just
stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable.
Which precedent
I wrote:
omd wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
Guess what I intend to do at this time?
Obligatory CFJ, disqualifying omd: Â omd is a player.
CFJ: If I registered in the quoted message, I would currently be District.
Arguments
Clerk's Docket
Date of this report: Fri 4 Feb 11
Recent events
Also, 2929 was remanded; I'll process that after the next round
of assignments.
There are ten inquiry cases and two criminal cases still waiting
to be assigned. I'm going to wait a while before the next round
of assignments, in case anyone wants to sit up first.
(There are also appeals of three of the cases numbered -1, which
are still waiting for the Justiciar to assign
omd wrote:
I sit up.
We're still not sure you're registered.
Wooble wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Gratuitous: Rule 2226 defines judicial rank as a player switch. Rule
2162 says No other entity possesses an instance of that switch. If
you deregistered, then you became an other entity and thus ceased
omd wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
omd wrote:
Guess what I intend to do at this time?
Obligatory CFJ, disqualifying omd: Â omd is a player.
CFJ: If I registered in the quoted message, I would currently be District.
Arguments: District
BobTHJ wrote:
AGORAN ANNOUNCEMENT
Type: Performance
Text: {
A public message is a message sent via an Agoran public forum, or sent
to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
be public. A person publishes or announces something by
sending a
G. wrote:
[I plan to resolve it Assessor in ~four days.
You missed changing this bit. Of course, you could just as well
cause R2324 to make yourself Assessor when the time comes.
ais523 wrote:
There's no need to involve Pariah here at all, players can create Rests
in eir own possession by announcement. And this scam relies on being
able to cause players to perform arbitrary actions at power 1 (making me
assume Pariah, an action, is different from causing me to become
G. wrote:
Since you became inactive, I can Assume the office and do it.
Looking back I realize I have to do so because Fourth Movement
requires G. to announce the result.
Should be okay, you already resigned Promotor (possible loophole
in R1450, you can act as Promotor and Assessor for the
omd wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Logic:
1. Â An Instrument explicitly CANNOT make changes power (R2140);
2. Â Exceptio probat regulam; therefore an instrument generally CAN make
changes = power.
[Note: I admit it's arguable and
Yally wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Yally wrote:
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming
that eir attempted erg destruction was a fee-based action.
Intended NoV
omd wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based
(zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have
enough ergs
G. wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following AI-1 proposal Out with the Dictator 1:
{{
Repeal Rule 2324.
[This is ineffective if the purported escalations worked.]
}}
I submit the following AI-3 proposal Out with the Dictator 3:
{{
Repeal Rule 2324.
}}
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
   Where permitted
   by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as
   part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.
This is a no-op (except possibly in the case
omd wrote:
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
permitted by other rules.
Permission can be implicit, in the sense
ais523 wrote:
I increase the II of CFJ 2951 to 1 and judge it TRUE. The caller's
The II was already 3, so this increase was ineffective, and your
later capacitor award may also have been ineffective.
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
On 11-01-16 05:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal 6947 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Wooble
New Forum
Flip the Publicity of the mailing list with the address
agora-pub...@googlegroups.com
scshunt wrote:
On 11-01-16 10:09 PM, omd wrote:
note that although this publicity flipping somewhat uniquely is
regulated by c), just about any proposal that did anything nontrivial
besides rule changes would have failed under your interpretation due
to e)
Yes.
I think it's reasonable to
scshunt wrote:
It's worth noting that the current wording was specifically written to
avoid the issue of Rule 106 accidentally authorizing the proposal to
perform higher-power changes.
I think the proto would preserve that, as it deliberately parallels
Rule 105's Where permitted by other
Wooble wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Wooble wrote:
In the election for CotC, there is only one valid option, Murphy. The
office becomes Postulated if for some reason it wasn't (e claimed to
assume it a while ago, but I can't find any
I remind the Justiciar (whoever it is at this point) that three of the
CFJs numbered -1 are waiting for em to assign an appeal panel.
Wooble wrote:
In the election for CotC, there is only one valid option, Murphy. The
office becomes Postulated if for some reason it wasn't (e claimed to
assume it a while ago, but I can't find any message purporting to
remove em from it or make is Assumed, so this probably does nothing.)
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
One of the great things of being deregistered is not being an eligible
voter, but I'll say that I'm strongly AGAINST.
Post-end-of-voting-period voting limit manipulations are fun.
Oh, sure, try being Assessor
omd wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Since the current policy adds unnecessary complexity, amend Rule 2280
(Implicit Votes) by replacing a number of ballots equal to eir voting
limit on that decision with one hundred ballots.
Oh, right
Yally wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 22:19, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/5/26 Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com:
NoV: Yally violated R2143, commiting the Class-6 Crime of
Roujo wrote:
I recuse myself from CFJs 2943 and 2944, since I'm not sure I followed
all that scam and wouldn't know where to start - let alone find what
the verdict should be. As the case seems quite complex, I let the II
of both those CFJs increase to 1.
The II didn't auto-increase due to
Roujo wrote:
I submit the following Proposal (with Adoption Index 1.0 and Interest
Index 1), titled A person by any other name is still a person:
I recommend removing this from the pool and re-submitting it, this time
specifying Bucky as co-author.
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
If possible, I rubberstamp proposals 6944, 6945, and 6946 and veto
proposal 6947.
If possible, I rubberstamp all 4 of them.
This is possible iff ais523's recent Bestowing Favors was effective
(it
2 Jan 22:45:57 5 ais523
10 ehird
7 Roujo
5 scshunt
5 Murphy (or Sgeo if Murphy's swap failed)
0 Sgeo(or Murphy)
3 Yally
2 others
3 Jan 07:37:06 Tanner crowned
6944 O 0 1.0 omd There are FIVE CFJs!
FOR
6945 O 0 3.0 Murphy Fix Urgency, Part Deux
FOR
6946 O 0 3.0 Murphy Fix Urgency
FOR
6947 O 1 1.0 Wooble New Forum
AGAINST
There are about two dozen cases waiting to be assigned, and currently
only three standing/sitting judges. Anyone want to sit up before I
start assigning these?
Roujo wrote:
Why Bucky? Was that his address? =P
Yeah, I think so.
Roujo wrote:
I stand if I'm not already standing, which I think I am. =P
You can't stand directly. You can sit, then you'll be flipped to
standing when no more currently-standing judges can be assigned.
Roujo wrote:
Aren't I already standing? One of my first game actions was to stand,
and I haven't been assigned a case since. I thought it was only
because I'm considered poorly qualified to judge anything since I'm a
new player. =P
No, one of your first /attempted/ game actions was to stand.
Roujo wrote:
Okay then, I'll sit (in another message ttPF), but why wasn't it
effective? I don't recall someone telling me it wasn't - mind you, my
memory isn't all that good right now. =P
1) Rule 1871 requires the Clerk of the Courts to track postures.
2) Due to #2, Rule 2125 (e) prevents
Wooble wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Moving targets are hard
(AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing resolution
with end of the voting period.
against; gives
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing resolution
with end of the voting period.
No, it takes away precisely that power. Â The advantage to the Assessor
is that it eases bookkeeping (once
Wooble wrote:
Proposal: No right to snoop, AI-3, co-author ais523:
{{
In R101, replace fora with Public and Discussion fora.
}}
Needs to update Rule 478 too.
ehird wrote:
On 5 January 2011 02:05, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to the intent to make me inactive.
Are you ever going to take a game action that isn't objecting to being
made inactive?
I think e objected to at least one of omd's without-8-objections
actions related to eir
omd wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
AFFIRM.
I think both the judge's opinion and the gratuitous arguments provided
by ais523 in response to the defendant's appeal are generally reasonable.
Gratuitous:
I don't (especially since some of
omd wrote:
I hereby submit a Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, with
the following text: coppro committed the Class C Crime of
Misrepresentation (violating Rule 1497) by presenting as correct the
information that e reordered the List of Succession, which is
incorrect because the
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Gratuitous:
As the third panelist in 2926a, I can no longer fulfill my Rule 911
duty to opine without violating my Rule 2157 duty to prevent the
panel from violating Rule 1727.
*1769? But judgement need
Roujo wrote:
If I can, I vote FOR * my voting limit on both of those, too.
You can't, you didn't register until after the voting periods started.
I wrote:
6943
ehird2F
Incidentally, I think FOR x 70 billion works fine, as it doesn't
require significantly more bookkeeping than (say) FOR x 70.
301 - 400 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
