On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 21:58, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 19:12, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Oops. With the consent of a majority of Llamas, I intend to amend the >>>> Llama Party by replacing "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), >>>> where X resolves to FOR or AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or >>>> AGAINST, respectively." with "A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA >>>> (X), where X resolves to FOR, PRESENT or AGAINST, is a party vote >>>> toward FOR, PRESENT or AGAINST, respectively." >>> >>> BobTHJ, do you object? I haven't seen your consent. >>> >>> Also, with the consent of a majority of Llamas, I intend to amend the >>> Llama Party by replacing "A party vote endorses the party decision, or >>> resolves to X if there is no party decision." with "A vote of LLAMA >>> (X) resolves to the party decision, or to X if there is no party >>> decision." >>> >>> --Ivan Hope CXXVII >>> >> Oops, sorry. Yes I consent to both these changes. >> >> BobTHJ > > I make those changes. I won't bother recasting votes of LLAMA > (PRESENT); I think it should be pretty clear now what they mean. > > (Also, psst: you're supposed to be voting LLAMA votes only, not SELL. > Post a sell ticket and vote LLAMA (endorse filler), I guess.) >
The way the contract was worded I only needed for vote LLAMA in place of FOR and AGAINST votes, of which I was casting none. BobTHJ
