ais523 wrote:
> Wasn't proposal 5810 just a proposal to import the critical-mass rule
> into B, though, given the circumstances? Proposal 5777 had already
> passed, and I don't think Agorans would be likely to have missed its
> significance. I've been approving Monster proposals due to significanc
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 12:42 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Without 2 objections I intend to cause the Monster to repeal rules 2214,
> >> 2192 and 2193.
> >
> > I object.
>
> I also object. Proposal 58
On 5 Nov 2008, at 19:36, Alex Smith wrote:
Why? This is basically just fixing a buggy proposal via Monster. It'll
be fixed by proposal otherwise, but this way is faster.
Agora nationalism?
--
ehird
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 11:28 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Without 2 objections I intend to cause the Monster to repeal rules 2214,
> > 2192 and 2193.
>
> I object.
>
Why? This is basically just fixing a buggy proposal via Monst
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 16:37 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 16:30, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I repeal rules 2214, 2192 and 2193.
> >
> > This fails because you are not an instrument (see
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> R2214 could be clearer, but it's reasonable to extrapolate that the
>> rules are repealed by the effect of R2214. At least, that's how we've
>> always done this sort of thing in the past.
>
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:46 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> R2214 could be clearer, but it's reasonable to extrapolate that the
>> rules are repealed by the effect of R2214. At least, that's how we've
>> always done thi
On 5 Nov 2008, at 00:30, comex wrote:
This fails because you are not an instrument (see Rule 105).
Poop. One-off proposal, anyone?
--
ehird
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R2214 could be clearer, but it's reasonable to extrapolate that the
> rules are repealed by the effect of R2214. At least, that's how we've
> always done this sort of thing in the past.
I swear there's a precedent (or at least
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-b] The Monster has moved shop to B
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott
-- Forwarded message --
From: comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [s-b] The Monster has moved shop to B
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I repeal rules 2214, 2192 and 2193.
This fa
11 matches
Mail list logo