Yally wrote:
> First, I would argue that Murphy and G. are still eligible voters as
> eligible voters are defined as:
>
>2) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is
> initiated, the eligible voters are the active first-class
> players. Otherwise, t
On 01/31/2010 01:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the AI one higher, right?
Can't do that either.
-coppro
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
> the AI one higher, right?
you can't veto it because it's no longer ordinary
--
-c.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> On 31 January 2010 21:09, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> On 01/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31 January 2010 21:05, Jonatan Kilhamn
>>> wrote:
On 31 January 2010 21:01, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
>
> On 30 J
On 01/31/2010 10:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 6607 - 6614:
6607 6608 6609 6610 6611 6612 6613 6614
G. 4A4F4F
Yay for apathy!
I vote FOR 6607, 6611, 6614.
I vote AGAINST 6612, 6613.
-G.
It wasn't apathy, actually, it was
Tiger wrote:
>> You cannot raise your voting limit on it; it is Democratic.
>>
> In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
> the AI one higher, right?
You can't veto a democratic proposal.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> That's for elections. For ordinary decisions, Rule 2156 says
>
> The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are the players who
> were active at the start of its voting period.
>
> and no, it does not exclude players with a voting li
On 31 January 2010 21:20, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 01/31/2010 01:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>
>> In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
>> the AI one higher, right?
>>
>
> Can't do that either.
>
> -coppro
>
I would really need a read the ruleset week soon...
--
-T
On 01/31/2010 01:24 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 31 January 2010 21:20, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 01/31/2010 01:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the AI one higher, right?
Can't do that either.
-coppro
I would really need a rea
On 31 January 2010 21:30, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 01/31/2010 01:24 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>
>> On 31 January 2010 21:20, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/31/2010 01:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the AI one higher
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> It wasn't apathy, actually, it was Rests that did it.
I was just looking back and realizing that actually.
Pretty fiendish of me, cleverly not-publishing reports to gain
enough rests to stop your evil plot. :P
11 matches
Mail list logo
