On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
> pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether "myevlod" is an int
> (5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
> FOR AGAINST FOR A
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
}
vote PRESENT;
>
>> It seems clear enough t
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for (int i =
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
{
vote FOR;
vote AGAINST;
>>>
On Jul 14, 2008, at 7:04 PM, Quazie wrote:
The proposal was an ordinary proposal. Thus, I can vote up to my
evlod on it. Thus i vote an equal number of FORs and AGAINSTs and if
there are any left over I vote PRESENT.
Then maybe we should define SUPPOSE as exactly that simple wording.
-
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
>>> {
>>> vote FOR;
>>> vote AGAINST;
>>> }
>>> vote PRESENT;
> It seems clear enough too me.
For one thing, Qua
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
>>> If a proposal is written by me I vote FO
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
>> If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
>> if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vo
comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
>> If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
>> if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
>> DECISION on it.
>>
>> SPLIT DECISION sho
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
>> ---
>> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
>> {
>> vote FOR;
>> vote AGAINST;
>> }
>> vote PRESENT;
>> ---
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a proposal is Democratic I vote FOR it.
> If a proposal is written by me I vote FORx5 on it.
> if a proposal does not fit into the above two categories I vote SPLIT
> DECISION on it.
>
> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as fo
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SPLIT DECISION should be evaluated as follows:
> ---
> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
> {
> vote FOR;
> vote AGAINST;
> }
> vote PRESENT;
> ---
In other words, you vote cycle [FOR, AGAINST]?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already def
Wooble wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
>> I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
>
> I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take
> effect before the votes on it are counted, s
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:40:02 am Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
> >
> > I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
>
> I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing
>>> it somewhe
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing
>> it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought
>> that it
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought that ENDORSE Agora was already defined.. I remember seeing
> it somewhere.. maybe it was in a proto and I got confused and thought
> that it was in a rule..
Umm, you saw it in the proposal you're voting on conditionally.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
>> I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
>
> I don't think this works; under no circumstances can
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5637 O1 1Quazie Agora is my conditional value
> I change my vote to ENDORSE Agora x4
I don't think this works; under no circumstances can a rule take
effect before the votes on it are counted, so relying on a definition
20 matches
Mail list logo
