Ed Murphy wrote:
Surprising no one, I cast each vote a number of times equal to my
voting limit on the decision in question.
6549 0 2.0 coppro Red More Voting Fun
PRESENT (why is this important?)
Cross the Floor currently doesn't work, so I decided we might as well
make
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
6569 1 1.0 coppro Green Quorum Busted
6560 1 1.0 coppro Green Anjusty
6561 1 1.0 coppro Green Contests Should Reward Themselves
6562 1 1.0 coppro Green
Wooble wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
6569 1 1.0 coppro GreenQuorum Busted
6560 1 1.0 coppro GreenAnjusty
6561 1 1.0 coppro GreenContests Should Reward Themselves
6562 1 1.0 coppro
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
(If this
happened a lot, then things would eventually tilt toward by now you
should be automating or paying more attention.)
Considering how often it happened the last time we had a non-automated
promotor, I'd expect
Tiger wrote:
I vote as follows, casting each vote 5 times if it's a Green decision
and 3 times if it's a Red one:
FYI your VLOP is 5 for Green, 1 for Red, 2 for Purple.
c. wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:30 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
and if 2029 is modified or repealed, it should be
via a scam that's powerful enough to modify it, probably with everyone
not involved in the scam try to stop it.
It would be a fitting end for Rule 2029,
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
I didn't come up with it came in on a scam, it should go out on a
scam (IIRC I first heard it during a phone call with OscarMeyr a year
or two ago) but, having heard it, I agree with it (provided that the
scam clearly does work, i.e. does not rely on a
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
6551 1 2.0 coppro Red Dead Contracts
PRESENT, ambiguous. with no party such that the party's basis contains
a player or with no parties, and whose basis contains a player?
Didn't you say you were in
You should bump R1698, too.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
---
---
---
Increase the power of Rule 2140 (Power Controls
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
You should bump R1698, too.
Sent from my iPhone
What about 1551? It would need to be bumped to allow ruleset
ratification (we should do that, incidentally), but then so would all
the other rules that ratify (merely setting the
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
You should bump R1698, too.
Sent from my iPhone
What about 1551? It would need to be bumped to allow ruleset
ratification (we should do that, incidentally), but then so would all
the other
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The other option is not to bump anywhere, but create a new and very
specific 3.9 rule for proposals: while some other instruments of
power 3 (ratification etc.) can set powerrule, proposals cannot.
Third option proto:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Third option proto:
Historical Preservation, AI-3:
{{
Create a new Power 3.1 rule entitled Historical Preservation with
the following text:
{{{
Any proposal that would cause the amendment or repeal of Rules 104,
2105, or 2029 does not take
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:08 -0500, comex wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Really? High AI doesn't automatically make things Democratic any more.
Title: Majority Leader.
Position: The Majority Leader CAN veto a specified ordinary
Sean Hunt wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
AGAINST, it's weird and messes with a deep-rooted concept in the rules.
Let's keep by announcement simple, pragmatic, and direct, please.
The problem with 'by announcment' is that it is, in many cases, not by
announcement. For instance, when you 'endorse the
Pavitra wrote:
For instance, it should specify that the triggering action must be by
announcement. This proposal would allow a private email acting on behalf
of someone to take an action that normally requires public announcement.
Hmm?
-coppro
Pavitra wrote:
AGAINST, it's weird and messes with a deep-rooted concept in the rules.
Let's keep by announcement simple, pragmatic, and direct, please.
The problem with 'by announcment' is that it is, in many cases, not by
announcement. For instance, when you 'endorse the office', your Pocket
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:04 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Really? High AI doesn't automatically make things Democratic any more.
Title: Majority Leader.
Position: The Majority Leader CAN veto a specified ordinary
decision in its voting period by announcement;
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 21:01 -0500, comex wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
6554 1 3.0 coppro GreenGuaranteed to Fail
AGAINST x my voting limit on this. If I can veto decisions by
announcement, I veto this one 10 times in a
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
6554 1 3.0 coppro Green Guaranteed to Fail
AGAINST x my voting limit on this. If I can veto decisions by
announcement, I veto this one 10 times in a row.
you can only veto it once before it ceases to be
Sean Hunt wrote:
Pavitra wrote:
For instance, it should specify that the triggering action must be by
announcement. This proposal would allow a private email acting on behalf
of someone to take an action that normally requires public announcement.
Hmm?
Amend rule 478 (Fora) by appending
21 matches
Mail list logo
