On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 13 April 2011 05:55, Florw wrote:
>> I hereby register.
>
> BORNG.
>
> CFJ: {Florw is a player.}
>
> Sorry, that is to say:
>
> Welcome! How's your name pronounced?
>
Is there really enough ambiguity here for this CFJ to be w
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I don't think it's broken. It's useful to allow voters to vote
>> different ways on the same decision, so I wouldn't want "sum of voting
>> limits of people who voted X"; banning voting limit changes would
>> forbid a lot of fun stuff; and ma
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, omd wrote:
> > AGAINST (don't pick an arbitrary constant; fix voting)
>
> I don't think it's broken. It's useful to allow voters to vote
> different ways on the same decision, so I wouldn't want "sum of voting
> limits of people who voted X"; banning voting limit changes w
On 12 April 2011 20:56, omd wrote:
> and making it literally an infinite number
> of votes (and defining/regulating infinite actions) seems like
> overkill for this one feature
FOR * Infinity
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> I initiate an election for IADoP. I nominate omd.
Not my fault that e ragequit over an election.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6997 2.0 omd Soles
>
> AGAINST (no effect)
It depends on Souls.
>> 6998 3.0 omd Fix implicit votes
>
> AGAINST (don't pick an arbitrary constant; fix voting)
I don't think it's broken. It's useful to allow vot
On 12 April 2011 20:46, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> 6997 2.0 omd Soles
>> 7000 3.0 omd Souls
>
> Note to Assessor: these were distributed in the wrong order; 7000
> should be resolved first.
>
Note to Assessor: you might
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> 6997 2.0 omd Soles
> 7000 3.0 omd Souls
Note to Assessor: these were distributed in the wrong order; 7000
should be resolved first.
On 12 April 2011 19:39, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 11-04-12 12:59 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> 7007 2.0 Walker Judge Points
>
> AGAINST (that's overpowered)
>> 7009 2.0 Walker Officer Points
>
> AGAINST (also overpowered)
They are the same power as the proposal points rule
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Otherwise, there will be mass confusion when someone tries to become active
> and can't!
I'm not worried about confusion, although a scam making everyone
inactive and making it impossible to become active is worrying,
especially as it could
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 14:47, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 14:44, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> NUM AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>> 7012 2.0 Walker Fix Timeout
>>
>
> AGAINST.
>
Otherwise, there will be mass confusion when someone tries to become active
a
On 11 April 2011 22:12, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Charles Walker wrote:
>> On 11 April 2011 21:30, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Charles Walker wrote:
>> >> I think that this is FALSE, FALSE and TRUE respectively.
>> >
>> > Pretty standard interpretation; any reason
12 matches
Mail list logo
