Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposal 6796

2010-08-25 Thread Ed Murphy
ais523 wrote: > --- On Tue, 24/8/10, Ed Murphy wrote: >> OIC. >> >> Proposal: Mother says not to run on the concrete >> (AI = 3, II = 1, co-author = omd, distributable via fee) >> >> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this >> text: >> >> If the Rules do not otherwise permit a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposal 6796

2010-08-25 Thread Jonatan Kilhamn
On 25 August 2010 09:34, Alex Smith wrote: > --- On Tue, 24/8/10, Ed Murphy wrote: >> OIC. >> >> Proposal:  Mother says not to run on the concrete >> (AI = 3, II = 1, co-author = omd, distributable via fee) >> >> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this >> text: >> >>       If the Ru

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposal 6796

2010-08-25 Thread Alex Smith
--- On Tue, 24/8/10, Ed Murphy wrote: > OIC. > > Proposal:  Mother says not to run on the concrete > (AI = 3, II = 1, co-author = omd, distributable via fee) > > Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this > text: > >       If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current act

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposal 6796

2010-08-24 Thread omd
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > CFJ, disqualifying omd:  In the section of Rule 106 quoted in caller's > evidence, "permit" should be interpreted as referring to possibility > and not legality. I never said it referred to legality. The proposal I attempted to distribute was n

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposal 6796

2010-08-24 Thread Aaron Goldfein
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 00:37, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 08/23/2010 09:43 PM, omd wrote: >> >> Just to confuse the issue, having received no objections, I distribute >> Proposal 6796. >> >> This distribution of proposal 6796 initiates the Agoran Decisions on >> whether to adopt it.  The eligible voter

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposal 6796

2010-08-24 Thread Alex Smith
--- On Tue, 24/8/10, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Sean Hunt wrote: > > CoE: the submitter was The Robot. > > Nicknames are informal, and we can refer to you in any way that > unambiguously identifies you. (Which "The Robot" probably doesn't do.) In particular, on reports, honouring the wishes of a p

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposal 6796

2010-08-24 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > CoE: the submitter was The Robot. Nicknames are informal, and we can refer to you in any way that unambiguously identifies you. (Which "The Robot" probably doesn't do.)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposal 6796

2010-08-23 Thread omd
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Also, you cannot do this, as Wooble CAN legally distribute a proposal. Not this one.