On 4/30/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Based on the preponderance of publications over the past few years,
I argue that messages of this general form:
"I retract proposal .
Proposal:
"
constitutes a clear indication that the stuff after the retraction
I don't see how
`
title: no VCs for Democratic proposals
AI: 3
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by replacing the text
When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the
integer portion of the proposal's adoption index, and each
co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
with
When an Ordina
On Apr 30, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
I hereby request permission to register under the name BobTHJ.
Permission granted. Feel free to register to the public forum.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
Herald/Registrar OscarMeyr
On May 1, 2007, at 5:12 PM, comex wrote:
On Saturday 28 April 2007 10:00, comex wrote:
I register. ;)
That clears it up. Thanks very much comex, and welcome to the Game
to end all Games!
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Also, proposal titles are (AFAICT) at the promotor's discretion.
Yes, they're completely unofficial at present.
>With all the action lately, I felt it may be useful to not distribute
>proposals with identical titles, as someone just might want to refer
>to a title
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Or we could go back to using an officer's budget to control such
>items. How about it?
I think more official discretion regarding VC earning (and spending)
is the last thing we need right now.
-zefram
On Apr 30, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Taral wrote:
4957 | Protection Racket (2) | Murphy| 1 | 29Apr07 | O
I call for judgement on the following statement:
"Murphy's message with datestamp Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:59:19 -0700 had
the effect of submitting a proposal."
Thanks very much for phras
On Apr 30, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Taral wrote:
On 4/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal: Protection Racket
To tell apart the two proposals, this proposal has been entered as
Protection Racket (2).
What, did the "duplicate proposal" rule get repealed too?
I checked. It
On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:22 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto: VC reorganization
Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) to group together (1) all the ways to
earn VCs and (2) all the ways to spend VCs.
Or we could go back to using an officer's budget to control such
items. How about it?
I do have the
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I can't make an agreement with myself,
We have mechanisms for this. It being a nomic, and all that.
Proto-proposal: mostly-random judicial assignments
{{{
Enact a rule titled "Policy on Judicial Assignments" with text:
When the Clerk of the Courts must choose a Trial
On 5/1/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I register. ;)
Welcome again! Sorry it's been a pain just to register.
Would you mind telling us how you found out about Agora Nomic?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I dance a dance of welcome. A welcomy kind of dance. Come dance with
me well. We
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
Thanks, it was CFJ 1266 (and was dismissed because it consisted of
multiple statements).
Oh yes, I'd forgotten an idiot newbie did that one.
Your words, not mine.
There's another CFJ right before/after. Look for one called by Blob,
judged by Steve, with the
Goethe wrote:
CFJ 1630:
We're all mad, here.
Levi judged:
I issue a judgement of DISMISSED as irrelevant to the rules.
I call for appeal of CFJ 1630. The truth of CFJ 1630 tells us
everything we need to know about the rules.
Not to the PF, but it's not clear that Rule 1564 cares.
13 matches
Mail list logo
