comex wrote:
And now it's down again.
And now it's up again.
By the way, any luck with the signal
booster? I've had nothing but pain with them.
Alas, no.
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
If there are complications, Zefram did
not mention them when calling this CFJ.
The only complication is that at the time GreyKnight believed that e could
not legally assign a judge to those CFJs. Per CFJ 1604 e was mistaken,
but of cou
On 6/26/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And now it's down again. By the way, any luck with the signal
booster? I've had nothing but pain with them.
It's working for me.
-root
And now it's down again. By the way, any luck with the signal
booster? I've had nothing but pain with them.
On 6/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At some point, a router setting on this end got mangled. (May have been
when I was configuring a signal booster yesterday.) Anyway, fix
comex wrote:
> If there are complications, Zefram did
>not mention them when calling this CFJ.
The only complication is that at the time GreyKnight believed that e could
not legally assign a judge to those CFJs. Per CFJ 1604 e was mistaken,
but of course that judgeme
comex wrote:
I'm not sure whether a majority judging REMAND means that the CFJ has
been overturned, or if bd_ still has to judge.
The latter.
In fact, which "above" (b) or c)?) does Rule 1447 d) refer to?
(b), but amending it to say "as if a majority had judged REASSIGN"
wouldn't be a bad
comex wrote:
> I intend to, without objection and with 1 supporter, order GreyKnight
> to make a formal apology. (Whether e will do this is questionable.)
If e doesn't, e'll end up breaking another rule... and ad infinitum.
Maybe under the circumstances the chokey is more just. It will expire
On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first
N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is the
entity's effective voting limit for that decision) remain valid; all
other ballots submitted on that decision are
root wrote:
On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first
N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is the
entity's voting limit for that proposal) remain valid; all other ballots
submitted on that decisio
Murphy wrote:
> Point there. These could do with some alternative cleanup,
> though; revised proto coming up shortly.
The revised proto looks very nice, good choice of wording.
-G.
On 6/26/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You also seem to be conflating "Agoran decision" with "proposal".
Currently, proposals are the only Agoran decisions defined, but it
would be good to be able to add new types of Agoran decisions without
having to fix this Power-3 rule. Otherwise,
On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first
>> N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is
>> the entity's voting limit) rem
root wrote:
On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first
N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is
the entity's voting limit) remain valid; all other ballots submitted
on that decisi
On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5047 AGAINST (see above; existing rule could be interpreted as "voting
>> limit on the proposal's current chamber at the start of its
>> voting period"; this is awkw
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Proposal: Disinterested Proposals
Yay. I always liked Disinterest when we had it before: it was most
useful in getting rule changes adopted, in the face of entrenched
interests that refused to let anyone else have an award.
By the way, there's a bad interaction between "Disint
15 matches
Mail list logo
