Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Looks fine-- although, by the way, I'm not sure this clause is >> necessary in the first place. > > Without it, is there anything stopping a Power 1 Rule from being made that > allows a proposal to take effect using the R106 mechanism?  E.g. p

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, omd wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Hows: > >      "If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that > >       has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules > >       to the contrary notwithstanding." >

DIS: Re: BUS: Another test

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > [Disclaimer:  This only works if "the President" in Rule 103 refers >  to Rule 2326 (The President).  I think we have precedent on this, >  but don't remember what to search for.] It was from the Monster era.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7081-7083

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Hows: >      "If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that >       has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules >       to the contrary notwithstanding." Looks fine-- although, by the way, I'm not s

DIS: Re: BUS: Another test

On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 08:34 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > [Disclaimer: This only works if "the President" in Rule 103 refers > to Rule 2326 (The President). I think we have precedent on this, > but don't remember what to search for.] CFJ 2002, but I'm not sure if it's applicable here. -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistrations

Yally wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 23:25, Elliott Hird > > wrote: > > On 18 June 2011 05:22, Sgeo > wrote: > > I object. > > I intend, without objection, to deregister Sgeo. > > You are inactive and rai

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistrations

On 06/17/2011 11:32 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 18 June 2011 05:27, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> Inactive players don't count towards the quorum. > > Good point; that slipped my mind. > > Still, the inactive-deregistration mechanism exists for a reason... As does the ability to block it with a sin

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistrations

On 18 June 2011 05:25, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 18 June 2011 05:22, Sgeo wrote: >> I object. > > I intend, without objection, to deregister Sgeo. > > You are inactive and raising the quorum. > Inactive players don't raise quorum. -- Charles Walker