On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> I've edited out the bits of the proposal I think are unproblematic; here
> are comments on the other bits.
I think I took on all of your suggestions, especially including tightening
up security (e.g. restricting proposal cards to operating on ordinary non-
G. wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>>> On a partially-related note, all elections should include a VACANT
>>> option. Or perhaps only if someone 'nominates' it? Vacant-option with 3
>>> support?
>>>
>>> EMPTY THRONE
>>>
>> Why? What if this happened to e. g. the Promotor?
>>
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> On a partially-related note, all elections should include a VACANT
>> option. Or perhaps only if someone 'nominates' it? Vacant-option with 3
>> support?
>>
>> EMPTY THRONE
>>
> Why? What if this happened to e. g. the Promotor?
>
On one hand it's
> On a partially-related note, all elections should include a VACANT
> option. Or perhaps only if someone 'nominates' it? Vacant-option with 3
> support?
>
> EMPTY THRONE
>
Why? What if this happened to e. g. the Promotor?
> Any office whose duties include being a dealer is a high-priority office.
Office priority has been repealed.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>
>>> On an unrelated note, I would like to see this incorporated into more
>>> offices. I think campaign speeches are a good idea and a much better
>>> way to decide than "this guy messed up fewer times in the past."
>>
>> A good g
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> On an unrelated note, I would like to see this incorporated into more
>> offices. I think campaign speeches are a good idea and a much better
>> way to decide than "this guy messed up fewer times in the past."
>
> A good general policy, certainly. B
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> * if the deck's dealer is part of an Officer's duty, then,
>>during an election for that office but before the last
>>four days of the election's voting period, a candidate for
>>that office CAN make and publish a pledge expli
> * if the deck's dealer is part of an Officer's duty, then,
> during an election for that office but before the last
> four days of the election's voting period, a candidate for
> that office CAN make and publish a pledge explicitly,
> clearly,
I've edited out the bits of the proposal I think are unproblematic; here
are comments on the other bits.
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 12:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If a card class has a position, there is always exactly one such
> instance of the class in existence, and it CANNOT be eith
As I was finishing up the proposal I see comments have come in. I'll
look at them and based on ais523's comments assume I'll incorporate
some of those as per discussion.
Meanwhile, here's one worth looking at; note that by splitting up
cards into multiple decks there may be room for a few more
11 matches
Mail list logo
