On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > >> On Jun 10, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 04:04 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> Separately, we’ve still not reverted the requirement that a payment >>> to pend a proposal happen Without 3 Objections that was put in as a >>> scam stopper. This is a huge brake on proposals, and therefore on >>> legislative play, and if we’re sure we fixed the scam, then it’s >>> probably time for that measure to go. I’ll even write the proposal to >>> remove it, if that’s what it takes. >> >> We have, by proposal. (The proposal didn't mention the old text by >> name, which is why you may have missed it.) I'm not sure if the >> Rulekeepor has processed the proposal in question yet, but the rule not >> having been reported doesn't prevent it having changed. > > Ah, that would do it. My apologies! > > I also see Aris’ proposal. I believe that that’s my fault - Aris, if I wasted > any of your time, I’m sorry, can I make it up to you?
It's not really your fault. It has more to do with the ruleset being a bit late, and the Rulekeepor is no doubt under a lot of pressure. So it's nobody's fault except mine. :) -Aris
